INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`) VALUES
(260174, 25247, 'ReportText', '<img class=\"size-full wp-image-8012 aligncenter\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/DG.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1536\" height=\"417\" />\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nSaudi Arabia is undergoing significant reform but, beyond the maelstrom of political speculation and conjecture, what are the practical and legal implications of the anti-corruption drive for investors?\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Saudi Arabia has seen tumultuous reform in the last 12 months as Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has sought to propel Saudi Arabia towards Vision 2030. International attention has been riveted to the government’s surging anti-corruption drive since a number of high-profile individuals were detained on corruption charges towards the end of 2017. Much of this attention, however, has been tangential, without providing clear insight into what impact such radical measures will have on the country’s legal framework and business climate.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A Favourable Forecast? The Business Outlook on Anti-Corruption</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The extent and boldness of the recent measures taken in Saudi Arabia are indicative of the government’s resolve to eliminate corruption in the system. The Kingdom has been signatory to the United National Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) since 2004, though it only ratified the agreement in 2013. The events that have garnered so much international attention are only the latest in a long-term initiative to address corrupt practices in the business sector. Between 2012 and 2017, Saudi Arabia has improved its score on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) from 44 to 49. Whilst this score still reflects significant room for improvement, it also charts measurable progress in a region that continues to face drastic change, and provides impetus for the more recent measures that clearly demonstrate the elevated priority of anti-corruption reform.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In order for the Kingdom to benefit from its drive for sustainability and prosperity, however, its determination to eradicate corruption must be symbiotic with its ability to assure investor confidence. The zero-tolerance approach that has surfaced over the past year has the potential to greatly improve the integrity of Saudi Arabia’s business market, but lingering concerns surround residual corruption with certain businesses continuing to question the feasibility and longevity of trading in the Kingdom.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTD) World Investment Report 2018 suggests that, in the short term at least, the anti-corruption drive has done little to improve investor confidence and may even have exacerbated feelings of uncertainty. Inward Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) flows have fallen by more than 80% between 2016 and 2017. Whilst this trend cannot be entirely attributed to the anti-corruption sweep that happened late in the final quarter of the year, it is certainly likely to have been a contributory factor in unsettling investor confidence. From a long-term perspective, however, efforts to level the playing field in Saudi Arabia may bring fairer weather to businesses as the obstacles associated with pervasive corruption are gradually eliminated from the system.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Saudi Arabia is far from being alone in its fight against corruption; it is one of the most prevalent and pressing issues facing systems across the globe, and countries with endemic corruption problems face an almost insurmountable challenge to attract foreign investment. At this nascent stage, it would be premature to speculate as to how other Middle Eastern countries will respond to the Kingdom’s efforts, but the most desirable outcome would be for neighbouring countries to become emboldened in their own anti-corruption efforts. The UAE already stands as the regional outlier in anti-corruption efforts, with a CPI 2017 ranking of 21st in the world, comparable to many leading international jurisdictions. The combined efforts of both Saudi Arabia and the UAE could be instrumental in forging a clear path to greater transparency for other afflicted countries in the Middle East.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Staying Dry: Legal Safeguards Against Corruption In The Kingdom</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The primary anti-corruption provisions are provided by the anti-bribery law issued by Royal Decree No. M/36 of 29-Dhu al-Hijjah-1412 (corresponding to 30 June 1996) (the \"Anti-Bribery Law\"). More recently, a decree was issued setting out rules relating to gifts for public officials (Decree No. 60 dated 18 Safar 1437H (corresponding to 1 December 2015) (the \"Rules on Gifts to Officials\" or the \"Rules\").</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Bribery of Public Officials</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Anti-Bribery Law is primarily focused on public servants. In order to maintain maximum protection for its public sector, the definition is intentionally broad, extending to personnel of joint stock companies, along with their board members and directors. It may also capture private sector individuals who are working on government-related projects, such as consultants to government projects, including temporary employees, experts appointed by the government or judiciary, or even employees of private companies contracted to provide public services. Employees of joint stock companies are also subject to the Anti-Bribery Law, as well as employees of companies and sole proprietorships engaged in banking services.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Anti-Bribery Law broadly defines a bribee as any public servant who solicits, accepts or receives for himself or for others, a gift or payment of any sort, or a promise thereof, as consideration for any act that impinges on the integrity of office. Defences against such practices are fortified by the absence of any exemption, caveat or even significant qualifying criteria for the type of act that could invoke bribery provisions. Any act can be considered corrupt, regardless of its legitimacy, whether it is a positive act or an omission, whether it has been done in the absence of a prior agreement, and even where it involves using the influence attached to a public office to gain benefit, rather than the performance of a relevant duty.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Given the traditionally prominent role of the government in the national economy, the Anti-Bribery Law does provide relatively wide protection, despite the obvious lack of corresponding safeguards applicable to the private sector. Privatisation targets encapsulated by Vision 2030, however, necessitate more complete protection and new measures that target both the public and private sector are a requirement going forward.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Penalties and Enforcement</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under the Anti-Bribery Law, penalties for the offences set out above can reach maximum penalties of imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and/or a fine not exceeding one million riyals (about USD 275,000).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Along with the specific penalties applicable to public servants who accept a bribe, it should be noted that the Anti-Bribery Law provides for the person offering the bribe (whether it is accepted or not), and any accomplice, to be susceptible to corresponding punishments.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">To protect a culture of respect for public officials, conviction on bribery offences also leads to dismissal and a bar from public office for a minimum of five years. In an attempt to prevent perpetrators from benefitting from the proceeds of crime, the Anti Bribery Law provides that any money, benefit or privilege derived from committal of the offence be confiscated wherever possible.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Gifts and Hospitality</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">No exemptions are provided for gifts and hospitality in the Anti-Bribery Law. Any benefit or privilege obtained by the bribee, regardless of its type or designation, whether material or otherwise, shall be considered a (prohibited) gift or promise. This has led to confusion in the past, as conventional business practices that would be widely accepted in other systems appeared to invoke the strict anti-bribery restrictions.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This matter was somewhat elucidated with the passing of the Rules on Gifts to Officials. Pursuant to these Rules, an official may accept gifts, given at visits and official occasions or at receptions of official guests, in accordance with custom and the courtesy protocols of such visits and occasions, though they cannot be cash and must be conventional in the context in which it is given. Crucially, businesses must be cognisant that generally, when reviewing the appositeness of a gift, the authorities will consider a number of contextual factors, including the proximity of the gift-giving to any relevant business deal, common courtesy practices of the firm in question, proportionality of the gift to conventional customs, and the appropriateness of the benefit given.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Though further provisions on the permissibility of certain types of gifts are outlined in the Rules, gifts and hospitality continue to be point of concern for business and can prove problematic in a culture where generosity is an ever-present feature of relations.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Exposure for Corporate Entities</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Significantly, where the manager or any employee of a private company is convicted of any offence under the Anti-Bribery Law, and the offence was committed for the benefit of such company, the law provides for a fine not exceeding ten times the value of the bribe and/or a ban from entering into public procurement or project contracts of at least 5 years. The briber can be exempted from punishment if he informs the authorities prior to the discovery of the offence, and this may provide some means by which corporate entities can limit their exposure upon becoming aware of any apparent offences under the Anti-Bribery Law.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Preparing for the Tempest: Bolstering Defences Ahead Of Reform</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">From a strategic perspective, since bribery is rarely an isolated issue, responses need to be thorough and comprehensive; part of an overarching coordinated national strategy that provides protection across an entire economic system and all branches of government. In order to ensure that such strategies are effective and aligned across institutions and businesses, they require constant monitoring and enforcement by a dedicated and independent authority, Where these institutions also act as the recipient in a sound and efficient reporting mechanism, the presence of a clear and trustworthy process increases the confidence of international investors.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Aside from the well-publicised arrests, Saudi Arabia’s corruption reform has extended to measures in other parts of its anti-corruption framework that have more sustainable implications for how it will address corrupt practices in future. These bold new mechanisms also enhance the country’s invigorated anti-corruption culture, which marks an abrupt departure from its previous presumed reticence on corruption matters.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"alignright  wp-image-8011\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/676.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"528\" height=\"213\" />Newly-formed Supreme Committee for Anti-Corruption</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The formation of the Supreme Committee is indicative of the greater strategic importance of anti-graft efforts to the country’s wider reform programme. Chaired by the Crown Prince and comprised of high-ranking officials from various sectors of governance, including security, finance and existing anti-corruption bodies, the Committee acts as a mechanism that will immediately elevate corruption instances to the remit of the highest echelons of government. In so doing, the Kingdom is sending a strong message that it will no longer turn a blind eye to practices that compromise its financial system or rule of law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The new Supreme Committee will have vastly advanced investigative and prosecutorial powers, including the capacity to issue arrest warrants and order interim measures such as issuing travel bans and asset freezing orders. This is a critical limitation of the existing National Anti-Corruption Commission, more commonly known as Nazaha, which was established in 2012 and has limited capacity, despite its function as the primary recipient of reports of corrupt activity. The new committee will not replace Nazaha, which will continue to target the protection of national integrity, investigate instances of graft in government contracts and refer any incidents to the relevant authorities and public prosecution as and when necessary.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">By coordinating the activities of both the Supreme Committee and Nazaha, the efficacy of existing measures will be boosted by covering a wider scope of prosecutorial powers, increased authority with which to pursue perpetrators, and greater scrutiny through public awareness.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Specialised Anti-corruption Units Within the Public Prosecution Department</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">As an additional measure, the Saudi government announced as recently as March 2018 that it had established new specialised anti-corruption units within the Public Prosecution. Cases prosecuted by these units would be carried out under the direct oversight of the Attorney General, once again demonstrating the paramount importance of corruption-related cases. Though it is unclear when the dedicated units will become operational, in creating this new advanced capacity the Saudi government has improved its ability to investigate and prosecute corrupt activity and, in so doing, will add an extra deterrent against illicit practices.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Whistleblower Culture</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Whistleblower protection is a significant point of departure in many regimes across the globe. Whilst some Western systems, such as the US, actively promote whistleblowing activity through substantial financial incentives, most countries in the Middle East have thus far been slow to introduce formal protection for whistleblowers, preferring instead to rely on a positive reporting duty and conscionable actions by citizens.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In this context, Saudi Arabia’s more proactive approach appears as an outlier. Article 17 of the Anti-Bribery Law provides for rewards for information substantiating an offence. Any person who is not a briber, or an accomplice, and who provides incriminating information substantiating any offence set out in Anti-Bribery Law, shall receive a reward not less than five thousand riyals (about USD 1,350) and not more than half of the money confiscated. There may be scope for a higher reward to be approved in appropriate circumstances.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition, King Salman’s recent order in May 2018 to provide whistle blower protection is progressive in its outlook and signifies Saudi Arabia’s willingness to accede to international standards of rights and transparency when it comes to prosecuting corruption crimes. If Saudi Arabia is mindful of the risks posed by the potential for spurious claims and introduces adequate measures to prevent abuse of the reporting system, whistle blower protection is yet a further measure that will likely serve to reinforce the culture of zero tolerance that Saudi Arabia is attempting to cultivate.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Impending Amendments to the Anti-Bribery Law</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 2 July 2018, Saudi Arabia’s Shoura (Consultative) Council approved draft amendments to the Anti-Bribery Law. The changes, which are yet to be implemented, are reportedly aimed at providing enhanced protection to public utilities through sound prosecution procedures and severe punishment for offences, as well as further enshrining the principles and commitments contained in the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). At present, the extent and exact nature of the amendments are unknown, but once officially passed into law, they have the potential to radically modernise Saudi Arabia’s anti-bribery legislation. This critical development warrants close attention over the coming months as the process to implementation progresses, and could assist investors in assessing the long-term outlook for Saudi Arabia’s economic integrity.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A Weather Eye on the Horizon: Is Further Change an Inevitability?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Anti-corruption measures are an ancillary part of the legal reform process in KSA, but do not represent the totality of the country’s ongoing transition. New money-laundering laws passed in October 2017 are emblematic of the Kingdom’s resolve to eradicate illicit practices from its system. Corruption is symptomatic of countries where there is weak rule of law, but Saudi Arabia’s legal fortifications will go a long way to stamping out the nexus of criminal behaviour that facilitates and drives corruption trends. These are important contributory factors that should be considered by foreign investors when making an assessment of Saudi Arabia’s economic security.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The changes that have already been implemented will only improve the prognosis of anti-corruption in Saudi Arabia. The continued momentum garnered from these initiatives will drive awareness of corruption problems, aided by the combined activity of Nazaha and the newly formed Supreme Committee for Anti-Corruption.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This is a pivotal time for Saudi Arabia and the long-term outlook is positive – there is already evidence of widespread reform to protect the Kingdom’s economic stability and integrity and address systemic weaknesses. Simultaneously, the changes that have been gradually introduced by Saudi Arabia’s General Investment Authority (SAGIA) since 2015 to liberalise the national economy and provide space for full foreign ownership in key sectors, are creating new incentive for foreign investors to tap into the largest market in the Middle East.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Equally, investors must strike the appropriate balance between caution and enthusiasm when encountering new opportunities in the market. Corruption challenges are persistent and pervasive and will require sustained redress for the foreseeable future. Though it is yet undetermined what new mechanisms and measures may be deployed in the Kingdom in future, it is likely that subsequent steps taken to quash illicit practices will have considerable consequences for domestic and foreign investors alike. This will require that foreign investors understand the legal framework and secure their interests against inevitable shifts in the Saudi market as reform measures revolutionise the domestic business culture.</p>\r\nOverall, however, Saudi Arabia’s recent multifaceted approach to reform has created the perfect storm for investors and, with an impending multitude of investment projects, businesses have a prime opportunity to invest at the leading edge of FDI, assured that corrupt practices are not operating with impunity.|<img class=\"size-full wp-image-8012 aligncenter\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/DG.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1536\" height=\"417\" />\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nSaudi Arabia is undergoing significant reform but, beyond the maelstrom of political speculation and conjecture, what are the practical and legal implications of the anti-corruption drive for investors?\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Saudi Arabia has seen tumultuous reform in the last 12 months as Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has sought to propel Saudi Arabia towards Vision 2030. International attention has been riveted to the government’s surging anti-corruption drive since a number of high-profile individuals were detained on corruption charges towards the end of 2017. Much of this attention, however, has been tangential, without providing clear insight into what impact such radical measures will have on the country’s legal framework and business climate.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A Favourable Forecast? The Business Outlook on Anti-Corruption</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The extent and boldness of the recent measures taken in Saudi Arabia are indicative of the government’s resolve to eliminate corruption in the system. The Kingdom has been signatory to the United National Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) since 2004, though it only ratified the agreement in 2013. The events that have garnered so much international attention are only the latest in a long-term initiative to address corrupt practices in the business sector. Between 2012 and 2017, Saudi Arabia has improved its score on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) from 44 to 49. Whilst this score still reflects significant room for improvement, it also charts measurable progress in a region that continues to face drastic change, and provides impetus for the more recent measures that clearly demonstrate the elevated priority of anti-corruption reform.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In order for the Kingdom to benefit from its drive for sustainability and prosperity, however, its determination to eradicate corruption must be symbiotic with its ability to assure investor confidence. The zero-tolerance approach that has surfaced over the past year has the potential to greatly improve the integrity of Saudi Arabia’s business market, but lingering concerns surround residual corruption with certain businesses continuing to question the feasibility and longevity of trading in the Kingdom.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTD) World Investment Report 2018 suggests that, in the short term at least, the anti-corruption drive has done little to improve investor confidence and may even have exacerbated feelings of uncertainty. Inward Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) flows have fallen by more than 80% between 2016 and 2017. Whilst this trend cannot be entirely attributed to the anti-corruption sweep that happened late in the final quarter of the year, it is certainly likely to have been a contributory factor in unsettling investor confidence. From a long-term perspective, however, efforts to level the playing field in Saudi Arabia may bring fairer weather to businesses as the obstacles associated with pervasive corruption are gradually eliminated from the system.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Saudi Arabia is far from being alone in its fight against corruption; it is one of the most prevalent and pressing issues facing systems across the globe, and countries with endemic corruption problems face an almost insurmountable challenge to attract foreign investment. At this nascent stage, it would be premature to speculate as to how other Middle Eastern countries will respond to the Kingdom’s efforts, but the most desirable outcome would be for neighbouring countries to become emboldened in their own anti-corruption efforts. The UAE already stands as the regional outlier in anti-corruption efforts, with a CPI 2017 ranking of 21st in the world, comparable to many leading international jurisdictions. The combined efforts of both Saudi Arabia and the UAE could be instrumental in forging a clear path to greater transparency for other afflicted countries in the Middle East.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Staying Dry: Legal Safeguards Against Corruption In The Kingdom</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The primary anti-corruption provisions are provided by the anti-bribery law issued by Royal Decree No. M/36 of 29-Dhu al-Hijjah-1412 (corresponding to 30 June 1996) (the \"Anti-Bribery Law\"). More recently, a decree was issued setting out rules relating to gifts for public officials (Decree No. 60 dated 18 Safar 1437H (corresponding to 1 December 2015) (the \"Rules on Gifts to Officials\" or the \"Rules\").</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Bribery of Public Officials</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Anti-Bribery Law is primarily focused on public servants. In order to maintain maximum protection for its public sector, the definition is intentionally broad, extending to personnel of joint stock companies, along with their board members and directors. It may also capture private sector individuals who are working on government-related projects, such as consultants to government projects, including temporary employees, experts appointed by the government or judiciary, or even employees of private companies contracted to provide public services. Employees of joint stock companies are also subject to the Anti-Bribery Law, as well as employees of companies and sole proprietorships engaged in banking services.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Anti-Bribery Law broadly defines a bribee as any public servant who solicits, accepts or receives for himself or for others, a gift or payment of any sort, or a promise thereof, as consideration for any act that impinges on the integrity of office. Defences against such practices are fortified by the absence of any exemption, caveat or even significant qualifying criteria for the type of act that could invoke bribery provisions. Any act can be considered corrupt, regardless of its legitimacy, whether it is a positive act or an omission, whether it has been done in the absence of a prior agreement, and even where it involves using the influence attached to a public office to gain benefit, rather than the performance of a relevant duty.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Given the traditionally prominent role of the government in the national economy, the Anti-Bribery Law does provide relatively wide protection, despite the obvious lack of corresponding safeguards applicable to the private sector. Privatisation targets encapsulated by Vision 2030, however, necessitate more complete protection and new measures that target both the public and private sector are a requirement going forward.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Penalties and Enforcement</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under the Anti-Bribery Law, penalties for the offences set out above can reach maximum penalties of imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and/or a fine not exceeding one million riyals (about USD 275,000).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Along with the specific penalties applicable to public servants who accept a bribe, it should be noted that the Anti-Bribery Law provides for the person offering the bribe (whether it is accepted or not), and any accomplice, to be susceptible to corresponding punishments.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">To protect a culture of respect for public officials, conviction on bribery offences also leads to dismissal and a bar from public office for a minimum of five years. In an attempt to prevent perpetrators from benefitting from the proceeds of crime, the Anti Bribery Law provides that any money, benefit or privilege derived from committal of the offence be confiscated wherever possible.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Gifts and Hospitality</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">No exemptions are provided for gifts and hospitality in the Anti-Bribery Law. Any benefit or privilege obtained by the bribee, regardless of its type or designation, whether material or otherwise, shall be considered a (prohibited) gift or promise. This has led to confusion in the past, as conventional business practices that would be widely accepted in other systems appeared to invoke the strict anti-bribery restrictions.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This matter was somewhat elucidated with the passing of the Rules on Gifts to Officials. Pursuant to these Rules, an official may accept gifts, given at visits and official occasions or at receptions of official guests, in accordance with custom and the courtesy protocols of such visits and occasions, though they cannot be cash and must be conventional in the context in which it is given. Crucially, businesses must be cognisant that generally, when reviewing the appositeness of a gift, the authorities will consider a number of contextual factors, including the proximity of the gift-giving to any relevant business deal, common courtesy practices of the firm in question, proportionality of the gift to conventional customs, and the appropriateness of the benefit given.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Though further provisions on the permissibility of certain types of gifts are outlined in the Rules, gifts and hospitality continue to be point of concern for business and can prove problematic in a culture where generosity is an ever-present feature of relations.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Exposure for Corporate Entities</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Significantly, where the manager or any employee of a private company is convicted of any offence under the Anti-Bribery Law, and the offence was committed for the benefit of such company, the law provides for a fine not exceeding ten times the value of the bribe and/or a ban from entering into public procurement or project contracts of at least 5 years. The briber can be exempted from punishment if he informs the authorities prior to the discovery of the offence, and this may provide some means by which corporate entities can limit their exposure upon becoming aware of any apparent offences under the Anti-Bribery Law.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Preparing for the Tempest: Bolstering Defences Ahead Of Reform</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">From a strategic perspective, since bribery is rarely an isolated issue, responses need to be thorough and comprehensive; part of an overarching coordinated national strategy that provides protection across an entire economic system and all branches of government. In order to ensure that such strategies are effective and aligned across institutions and businesses, they require constant monitoring and enforcement by a dedicated and independent authority, Where these institutions also act as the recipient in a sound and efficient reporting mechanism, the presence of a clear and trustworthy process increases the confidence of international investors.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Aside from the well-publicised arrests, Saudi Arabia’s corruption reform has extended to measures in other parts of its anti-corruption framework that have more sustainable implications for how it will address corrupt practices in future. These bold new mechanisms also enhance the country’s invigorated anti-corruption culture, which marks an abrupt departure from its previous presumed reticence on corruption matters.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"alignright wp-image-8011\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/676.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"528\" height=\"213\" /></br>Newly-formed Supreme Committee for Anti-Corruption</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The formation of the Supreme Committee is indicative of the greater strategic importance of anti-graft efforts to the country’s wider reform programme. Chaired by the Crown Prince and comprised of high-ranking officials from various sectors of governance, including security, finance and existing anti-corruption bodies, the Committee acts as a mechanism that will immediately elevate corruption instances to the remit of the highest echelons of government. In so doing, the Kingdom is sending a strong message that it will no longer turn a blind eye to practices that compromise its financial system or rule of law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The new Supreme Committee will have vastly advanced investigative and prosecutorial powers, including the capacity to issue arrest warrants and order interim measures such as issuing travel bans and asset freezing orders. This is a critical limitation of the existing National Anti-Corruption Commission, more commonly known as Nazaha, which was established in 2012 and has limited capacity, despite its function as the primary recipient of reports of corrupt activity. The new committee will not replace Nazaha, which will continue to target the protection of national integrity, investigate instances of graft in government contracts and refer any incidents to the relevant authorities and public prosecution as and when necessary.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">By coordinating the activities of both the Supreme Committee and Nazaha, the efficacy of existing measures will be boosted by covering a wider scope of prosecutorial powers, increased authority with which to pursue perpetrators, and greater scrutiny through public awareness.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Specialised Anti-corruption Units Within the Public Prosecution Department</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">As an additional measure, the Saudi government announced as recently as March 2018 that it had established new specialised anti-corruption units within the Public Prosecution. Cases prosecuted by these units would be carried out under the direct oversight of the Attorney General, once again demonstrating the paramount importance of corruption-related cases. Though it is unclear when the dedicated units will become operational, in creating this new advanced capacity the Saudi government has improved its ability to investigate and prosecute corrupt activity and, in so doing, will add an extra deterrent against illicit practices.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Whistleblower Culture</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Whistleblower protection is a significant point of departure in many regimes across the globe. Whilst some Western systems, such as the US, actively promote whistleblowing activity through substantial financial incentives, most countries in the Middle East have thus far been slow to introduce formal protection for whistleblowers, preferring instead to rely on a positive reporting duty and conscionable actions by citizens.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In this context, Saudi Arabia’s more proactive approach appears as an outlier. Article 17 of the Anti-Bribery Law provides for rewards for information substantiating an offence. Any person who is not a briber, or an accomplice, and who provides incriminating information substantiating any offence set out in Anti-Bribery Law, shall receive a reward not less than five thousand riyals (about USD 1,350) and not more than half of the money confiscated. There may be scope for a higher reward to be approved in appropriate circumstances.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition, King Salman’s recent order in May 2018 to provide whistle blower protection is progressive in its outlook and signifies Saudi Arabia’s willingness to accede to international standards of rights and transparency when it comes to prosecuting corruption crimes. If Saudi Arabia is mindful of the risks posed by the potential for spurious claims and introduces adequate measures to prevent abuse of the reporting system, whistle blower protection is yet a further measure that will likely serve to reinforce the culture of zero tolerance that Saudi Arabia is attempting to cultivate.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Impending Amendments to the Anti-Bribery Law</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 2 July 2018, Saudi Arabia’s Shoura (Consultative) Council approved draft amendments to the Anti-Bribery Law. The changes, which are yet to be implemented, are reportedly aimed at providing enhanced protection to public utilities through sound prosecution procedures and severe punishment for offences, as well as further enshrining the principles and commitments contained in the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). At present, the extent and exact nature of the amendments are unknown, but once officially passed into law, they have the potential to radically modernise Saudi Arabia’s anti-bribery legislation. This critical development warrants close attention over the coming months as the process to implementation progresses, and could assist investors in assessing the long-term outlook for Saudi Arabia’s economic integrity.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A Weather Eye on the Horizon: Is Further Change an Inevitability?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Anti-corruption measures are an ancillary part of the legal reform process in KSA, but do not represent the totality of the country’s ongoing transition. New money-laundering laws passed in October 2017 are emblematic of the Kingdom’s resolve to eradicate illicit practices from its system. Corruption is symptomatic of countries where there is weak rule of law, but Saudi Arabia’s legal fortifications will go a long way to stamping out the nexus of criminal behaviour that facilitates and drives corruption trends. These are important contributory factors that should be considered by foreign investors when making an assessment of Saudi Arabia’s economic security.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The changes that have already been implemented will only improve the prognosis of anti-corruption in Saudi Arabia. The continued momentum garnered from these initiatives will drive awareness of corruption problems, aided by the combined activity of Nazaha and the newly formed Supreme Committee for Anti-Corruption.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This is a pivotal time for Saudi Arabia and the long-term outlook is positive – there is already evidence of widespread reform to protect the Kingdom’s economic stability and integrity and address systemic weaknesses. Simultaneously, the changes that have been gradually introduced by Saudi Arabia’s General Investment Authority (SAGIA) since 2015 to liberalise the national economy and provide space for full foreign ownership in key sectors, are creating new incentive for foreign investors to tap into the largest market in the Middle East.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Equally, investors must strike the appropriate balance between caution and enthusiasm when encountering new opportunities in the market. Corruption challenges are persistent and pervasive and will require sustained redress for the foreseeable future. Though it is yet undetermined what new mechanisms and measures may be deployed in the Kingdom in future, it is likely that subsequent steps taken to quash illicit practices will have considerable consequences for domestic and foreign investors alike. This will require that foreign investors understand the legal framework and secure their interests against inevitable shifts in the Saudi market as reform measures revolutionise the domestic business culture.</p>\r\nOverall, however, Saudi Arabia’s recent multifaceted approach to reform has created the perfect storm for investors and, with an impending multitude of investment projects, businesses have a prime opportunity to invest at the leading edge of FDI, assured that corrupt practices are not operating with impunity.'),
(260175, 25247, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(260176, 25247, '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'),
(260177, 25247, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(260178, 25247, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(260179, 25248, 'PostID', '7939'),
(260180, 25248, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(260181, 25248, 'PostTitle', 'The Calm After the Storm: Saudi Arabia’s Anti-Corruption Tornado and the Investor Impact'),
(260182, 25248, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(260183, 25248, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:41:29'),
(260184, 25248, 'PostUrl', 'https://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/the-calm-after-the-storm-saudi-arabias-anti-corruption-tornado-and-the-investor-impact/'),
(260185, 25248, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7939&amp;action=edit'),
(260186, 25248, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(260187, 25248, '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'),
(260188, 25248, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(260189, 25248, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(260190, 25249, 'PostID', '7939'),
(260191, 25249, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(260192, 25249, 'PostTitle', 'The Calm After the Storm: Saudi Arabia’s Anti-Corruption Tornado and the Investor Impact'),
(260193, 25249, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(260194, 25249, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:41:29'),
(260195, 25249, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/the-calm-after-the-storm-saudi-arabias-anti-corruption-tornado-and-the-investor-impact/'),
(260196, 25249, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7939&amp;action=edit'),
(260197, 25249, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(260198, 25249, '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'),
(260199, 25249, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(260200, 25249, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(260201, 25250, 'PostID', '7939'),
(260202, 25250, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(260203, 25250, 'PostTitle', 'The Calm After the Storm: Saudi Arabia’s Anti-Corruption Tornado and the Investor Impact'),
(260204, 25250, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(260205, 25250, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:41:29'),
(260206, 25250, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/the-calm-after-the-storm-saudi-arabias-anti-corruption-tornado-and-the-investor-impact/'),
(260207, 25250, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7939&amp;action=edit'),
(260208, 25250, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(260209, 25250, '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'),
(260210, 25250, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(260211, 25250, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(260212, 25251, 'PostID', '7939'),
(260213, 25251, 'PostTitle', 'The Calm After the Storm: Saudi Arabia’s Anti-Corruption Tornado and the Investor Impact'),
(260214, 25251, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(260215, 25251, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(260216, 25251, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:41:29'),
(260217, 25251, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/the-calm-after-the-storm-saudi-arabias-anti-corruption-tornado-and-the-investor-impact/'),
(260218, 25251, 'MetaID', '223266'),
(260219, 25251, 'MetaKey', 'content');
INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`) VALUES
(260220, 25251, 'MetaValueNew', '<img class=\"size-full wp-image-8012 aligncenter\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/DG.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1536\" height=\"417\" />\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nSaudi Arabia is undergoing significant reform but, beyond the maelstrom of political speculation and conjecture, what are the practical and legal implications of the anti-corruption drive for investors?\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Saudi Arabia has seen tumultuous reform in the last 12 months as Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has sought to propel Saudi Arabia towards Vision 2030. International attention has been riveted to the government’s surging anti-corruption drive since a number of high-profile individuals were detained on corruption charges towards the end of 2017. Much of this attention, however, has been tangential, without providing clear insight into what impact such radical measures will have on the country’s legal framework and business climate.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A Favourable Forecast? The Business Outlook on Anti-Corruption</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The extent and boldness of the recent measures taken in Saudi Arabia are indicative of the government’s resolve to eliminate corruption in the system. The Kingdom has been signatory to the United National Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) since 2004, though it only ratified the agreement in 2013. The events that have garnered so much international attention are only the latest in a long-term initiative to address corrupt practices in the business sector. Between 2012 and 2017, Saudi Arabia has improved its score on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) from 44 to 49. Whilst this score still reflects significant room for improvement, it also charts measurable progress in a region that continues to face drastic change, and provides impetus for the more recent measures that clearly demonstrate the elevated priority of anti-corruption reform.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In order for the Kingdom to benefit from its drive for sustainability and prosperity, however, its determination to eradicate corruption must be symbiotic with its ability to assure investor confidence. The zero-tolerance approach that has surfaced over the past year has the potential to greatly improve the integrity of Saudi Arabia’s business market, but lingering concerns surround residual corruption with certain businesses continuing to question the feasibility and longevity of trading in the Kingdom.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTD) World Investment Report 2018 suggests that, in the short term at least, the anti-corruption drive has done little to improve investor confidence and may even have exacerbated feelings of uncertainty. Inward Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) flows have fallen by more than 80% between 2016 and 2017. Whilst this trend cannot be entirely attributed to the anti-corruption sweep that happened late in the final quarter of the year, it is certainly likely to have been a contributory factor in unsettling investor confidence. From a long-term perspective, however, efforts to level the playing field in Saudi Arabia may bring fairer weather to businesses as the obstacles associated with pervasive corruption are gradually eliminated from the system.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Saudi Arabia is far from being alone in its fight against corruption; it is one of the most prevalent and pressing issues facing systems across the globe, and countries with endemic corruption problems face an almost insurmountable challenge to attract foreign investment. At this nascent stage, it would be premature to speculate as to how other Middle Eastern countries will respond to the Kingdom’s efforts, but the most desirable outcome would be for neighbouring countries to become emboldened in their own anti-corruption efforts. The UAE already stands as the regional outlier in anti-corruption efforts, with a CPI 2017 ranking of 21st in the world, comparable to many leading international jurisdictions. The combined efforts of both Saudi Arabia and the UAE could be instrumental in forging a clear path to greater transparency for other afflicted countries in the Middle East.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Staying Dry: Legal Safeguards Against Corruption In The Kingdom</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The primary anti-corruption provisions are provided by the anti-bribery law issued by Royal Decree No. M/36 of 29-Dhu al-Hijjah-1412 (corresponding to 30 June 1996) (the \"Anti-Bribery Law\"). More recently, a decree was issued setting out rules relating to gifts for public officials (Decree No. 60 dated 18 Safar 1437H (corresponding to 1 December 2015) (the \"Rules on Gifts to Officials\" or the \"Rules\").</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Bribery of Public Officials</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Anti-Bribery Law is primarily focused on public servants. In order to maintain maximum protection for its public sector, the definition is intentionally broad, extending to personnel of joint stock companies, along with their board members and directors. It may also capture private sector individuals who are working on government-related projects, such as consultants to government projects, including temporary employees, experts appointed by the government or judiciary, or even employees of private companies contracted to provide public services. Employees of joint stock companies are also subject to the Anti-Bribery Law, as well as employees of companies and sole proprietorships engaged in banking services.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Anti-Bribery Law broadly defines a bribee as any public servant who solicits, accepts or receives for himself or for others, a gift or payment of any sort, or a promise thereof, as consideration for any act that impinges on the integrity of office. Defences against such practices are fortified by the absence of any exemption, caveat or even significant qualifying criteria for the type of act that could invoke bribery provisions. Any act can be considered corrupt, regardless of its legitimacy, whether it is a positive act or an omission, whether it has been done in the absence of a prior agreement, and even where it involves using the influence attached to a public office to gain benefit, rather than the performance of a relevant duty.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Given the traditionally prominent role of the government in the national economy, the Anti-Bribery Law does provide relatively wide protection, despite the obvious lack of corresponding safeguards applicable to the private sector. Privatisation targets encapsulated by Vision 2030, however, necessitate more complete protection and new measures that target both the public and private sector are a requirement going forward.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Penalties and Enforcement</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under the Anti-Bribery Law, penalties for the offences set out above can reach maximum penalties of imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and/or a fine not exceeding one million riyals (about USD 275,000).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Along with the specific penalties applicable to public servants who accept a bribe, it should be noted that the Anti-Bribery Law provides for the person offering the bribe (whether it is accepted or not), and any accomplice, to be susceptible to corresponding punishments.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">To protect a culture of respect for public officials, conviction on bribery offences also leads to dismissal and a bar from public office for a minimum of five years. In an attempt to prevent perpetrators from benefitting from the proceeds of crime, the Anti Bribery Law provides that any money, benefit or privilege derived from committal of the offence be confiscated wherever possible.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Gifts and Hospitality</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">No exemptions are provided for gifts and hospitality in the Anti-Bribery Law. Any benefit or privilege obtained by the bribee, regardless of its type or designation, whether material or otherwise, shall be considered a (prohibited) gift or promise. This has led to confusion in the past, as conventional business practices that would be widely accepted in other systems appeared to invoke the strict anti-bribery restrictions.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This matter was somewhat elucidated with the passing of the Rules on Gifts to Officials. Pursuant to these Rules, an official may accept gifts, given at visits and official occasions or at receptions of official guests, in accordance with custom and the courtesy protocols of such visits and occasions, though they cannot be cash and must be conventional in the context in which it is given. Crucially, businesses must be cognisant that generally, when reviewing the appositeness of a gift, the authorities will consider a number of contextual factors, including the proximity of the gift-giving to any relevant business deal, common courtesy practices of the firm in question, proportionality of the gift to conventional customs, and the appropriateness of the benefit given.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Though further provisions on the permissibility of certain types of gifts are outlined in the Rules, gifts and hospitality continue to be point of concern for business and can prove problematic in a culture where generosity is an ever-present feature of relations.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Exposure for Corporate Entities</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Significantly, where the manager or any employee of a private company is convicted of any offence under the Anti-Bribery Law, and the offence was committed for the benefit of such company, the law provides for a fine not exceeding ten times the value of the bribe and/or a ban from entering into public procurement or project contracts of at least 5 years. The briber can be exempted from punishment if he informs the authorities prior to the discovery of the offence, and this may provide some means by which corporate entities can limit their exposure upon becoming aware of any apparent offences under the Anti-Bribery Law.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Preparing for the Tempest: Bolstering Defences Ahead Of Reform</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">From a strategic perspective, since bribery is rarely an isolated issue, responses need to be thorough and comprehensive; part of an overarching coordinated national strategy that provides protection across an entire economic system and all branches of government. In order to ensure that such strategies are effective and aligned across institutions and businesses, they require constant monitoring and enforcement by a dedicated and independent authority, Where these institutions also act as the recipient in a sound and efficient reporting mechanism, the presence of a clear and trustworthy process increases the confidence of international investors.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Aside from the well-publicised arrests, Saudi Arabia’s corruption reform has extended to measures in other parts of its anti-corruption framework that have more sustainable implications for how it will address corrupt practices in future. These bold new mechanisms also enhance the country’s invigorated anti-corruption culture, which marks an abrupt departure from its previous presumed reticence on corruption matters.</p>\r\n</br><p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"alignright wp-image-8011\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/676.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"528\" height=\"213\" /></br>Newly-formed Supreme Committee for Anti-Corruption</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The formation of the Supreme Committee is indicative of the greater strategic importance of anti-graft efforts to the country’s wider reform programme. Chaired by the Crown Prince and comprised of high-ranking officials from various sectors of governance, including security, finance and existing anti-corruption bodies, the Committee acts as a mechanism that will immediately elevate corruption instances to the remit of the highest echelons of government. In so doing, the Kingdom is sending a strong message that it will no longer turn a blind eye to practices that compromise its financial system or rule of law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The new Supreme Committee will have vastly advanced investigative and prosecutorial powers, including the capacity to issue arrest warrants and order interim measures such as issuing travel bans and asset freezing orders. This is a critical limitation of the existing National Anti-Corruption Commission, more commonly known as Nazaha, which was established in 2012 and has limited capacity, despite its function as the primary recipient of reports of corrupt activity. The new committee will not replace Nazaha, which will continue to target the protection of national integrity, investigate instances of graft in government contracts and refer any incidents to the relevant authorities and public prosecution as and when necessary.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">By coordinating the activities of both the Supreme Committee and Nazaha, the efficacy of existing measures will be boosted by covering a wider scope of prosecutorial powers, increased authority with which to pursue perpetrators, and greater scrutiny through public awareness.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Specialised Anti-corruption Units Within the Public Prosecution Department</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">As an additional measure, the Saudi government announced as recently as March 2018 that it had established new specialised anti-corruption units within the Public Prosecution. Cases prosecuted by these units would be carried out under the direct oversight of the Attorney General, once again demonstrating the paramount importance of corruption-related cases. Though it is unclear when the dedicated units will become operational, in creating this new advanced capacity the Saudi government has improved its ability to investigate and prosecute corrupt activity and, in so doing, will add an extra deterrent against illicit practices.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Whistleblower Culture</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Whistleblower protection is a significant point of departure in many regimes across the globe. Whilst some Western systems, such as the US, actively promote whistleblowing activity through substantial financial incentives, most countries in the Middle East have thus far been slow to introduce formal protection for whistleblowers, preferring instead to rely on a positive reporting duty and conscionable actions by citizens.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In this context, Saudi Arabia’s more proactive approach appears as an outlier. Article 17 of the Anti-Bribery Law provides for rewards for information substantiating an offence. Any person who is not a briber, or an accomplice, and who provides incriminating information substantiating any offence set out in Anti-Bribery Law, shall receive a reward not less than five thousand riyals (about USD 1,350) and not more than half of the money confiscated. There may be scope for a higher reward to be approved in appropriate circumstances.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition, King Salman’s recent order in May 2018 to provide whistle blower protection is progressive in its outlook and signifies Saudi Arabia’s willingness to accede to international standards of rights and transparency when it comes to prosecuting corruption crimes. If Saudi Arabia is mindful of the risks posed by the potential for spurious claims and introduces adequate measures to prevent abuse of the reporting system, whistle blower protection is yet a further measure that will likely serve to reinforce the culture of zero tolerance that Saudi Arabia is attempting to cultivate.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Impending Amendments to the Anti-Bribery Law</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 2 July 2018, Saudi Arabia’s Shoura (Consultative) Council approved draft amendments to the Anti-Bribery Law. The changes, which are yet to be implemented, are reportedly aimed at providing enhanced protection to public utilities through sound prosecution procedures and severe punishment for offences, as well as further enshrining the principles and commitments contained in the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). At present, the extent and exact nature of the amendments are unknown, but once officially passed into law, they have the potential to radically modernise Saudi Arabia’s anti-bribery legislation. This critical development warrants close attention over the coming months as the process to implementation progresses, and could assist investors in assessing the long-term outlook for Saudi Arabia’s economic integrity.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A Weather Eye on the Horizon: Is Further Change an Inevitability?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Anti-corruption measures are an ancillary part of the legal reform process in KSA, but do not represent the totality of the country’s ongoing transition. New money-laundering laws passed in October 2017 are emblematic of the Kingdom’s resolve to eradicate illicit practices from its system. Corruption is symptomatic of countries where there is weak rule of law, but Saudi Arabia’s legal fortifications will go a long way to stamping out the nexus of criminal behaviour that facilitates and drives corruption trends. These are important contributory factors that should be considered by foreign investors when making an assessment of Saudi Arabia’s economic security.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The changes that have already been implemented will only improve the prognosis of anti-corruption in Saudi Arabia. The continued momentum garnered from these initiatives will drive awareness of corruption problems, aided by the combined activity of Nazaha and the newly formed Supreme Committee for Anti-Corruption.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This is a pivotal time for Saudi Arabia and the long-term outlook is positive – there is already evidence of widespread reform to protect the Kingdom’s economic stability and integrity and address systemic weaknesses. Simultaneously, the changes that have been gradually introduced by Saudi Arabia’s General Investment Authority (SAGIA) since 2015 to liberalise the national economy and provide space for full foreign ownership in key sectors, are creating new incentive for foreign investors to tap into the largest market in the Middle East.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Equally, investors must strike the appropriate balance between caution and enthusiasm when encountering new opportunities in the market. Corruption challenges are persistent and pervasive and will require sustained redress for the foreseeable future. Though it is yet undetermined what new mechanisms and measures may be deployed in the Kingdom in future, it is likely that subsequent steps taken to quash illicit practices will have considerable consequences for domestic and foreign investors alike. This will require that foreign investors understand the legal framework and secure their interests against inevitable shifts in the Saudi market as reform measures revolutionise the domestic business culture.</p>\r\nOverall, however, Saudi Arabia’s recent multifaceted approach to reform has created the perfect storm for investors and, with an impending multitude of investment projects, businesses have a prime opportunity to invest at the leading edge of FDI, assured that corrupt practices are not operating with impunity.'),
(260221, 25251, 'MetaValueOld', '<img class=\"size-full wp-image-8012 aligncenter\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/DG.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1536\" height=\"417\" />\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nSaudi Arabia is undergoing significant reform but, beyond the maelstrom of political speculation and conjecture, what are the practical and legal implications of the anti-corruption drive for investors?\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Saudi Arabia has seen tumultuous reform in the last 12 months as Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has sought to propel Saudi Arabia towards Vision 2030. International attention has been riveted to the government’s surging anti-corruption drive since a number of high-profile individuals were detained on corruption charges towards the end of 2017. Much of this attention, however, has been tangential, without providing clear insight into what impact such radical measures will have on the country’s legal framework and business climate.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A Favourable Forecast? The Business Outlook on Anti-Corruption</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The extent and boldness of the recent measures taken in Saudi Arabia are indicative of the government’s resolve to eliminate corruption in the system. The Kingdom has been signatory to the United National Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) since 2004, though it only ratified the agreement in 2013. The events that have garnered so much international attention are only the latest in a long-term initiative to address corrupt practices in the business sector. Between 2012 and 2017, Saudi Arabia has improved its score on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) from 44 to 49. Whilst this score still reflects significant room for improvement, it also charts measurable progress in a region that continues to face drastic change, and provides impetus for the more recent measures that clearly demonstrate the elevated priority of anti-corruption reform.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In order for the Kingdom to benefit from its drive for sustainability and prosperity, however, its determination to eradicate corruption must be symbiotic with its ability to assure investor confidence. The zero-tolerance approach that has surfaced over the past year has the potential to greatly improve the integrity of Saudi Arabia’s business market, but lingering concerns surround residual corruption with certain businesses continuing to question the feasibility and longevity of trading in the Kingdom.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTD) World Investment Report 2018 suggests that, in the short term at least, the anti-corruption drive has done little to improve investor confidence and may even have exacerbated feelings of uncertainty. Inward Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) flows have fallen by more than 80% between 2016 and 2017. Whilst this trend cannot be entirely attributed to the anti-corruption sweep that happened late in the final quarter of the year, it is certainly likely to have been a contributory factor in unsettling investor confidence. From a long-term perspective, however, efforts to level the playing field in Saudi Arabia may bring fairer weather to businesses as the obstacles associated with pervasive corruption are gradually eliminated from the system.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Saudi Arabia is far from being alone in its fight against corruption; it is one of the most prevalent and pressing issues facing systems across the globe, and countries with endemic corruption problems face an almost insurmountable challenge to attract foreign investment. At this nascent stage, it would be premature to speculate as to how other Middle Eastern countries will respond to the Kingdom’s efforts, but the most desirable outcome would be for neighbouring countries to become emboldened in their own anti-corruption efforts. The UAE already stands as the regional outlier in anti-corruption efforts, with a CPI 2017 ranking of 21st in the world, comparable to many leading international jurisdictions. The combined efforts of both Saudi Arabia and the UAE could be instrumental in forging a clear path to greater transparency for other afflicted countries in the Middle East.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Staying Dry: Legal Safeguards Against Corruption In The Kingdom</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The primary anti-corruption provisions are provided by the anti-bribery law issued by Royal Decree No. M/36 of 29-Dhu al-Hijjah-1412 (corresponding to 30 June 1996) (the \"Anti-Bribery Law\"). More recently, a decree was issued setting out rules relating to gifts for public officials (Decree No. 60 dated 18 Safar 1437H (corresponding to 1 December 2015) (the \"Rules on Gifts to Officials\" or the \"Rules\").</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Bribery of Public Officials</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Anti-Bribery Law is primarily focused on public servants. In order to maintain maximum protection for its public sector, the definition is intentionally broad, extending to personnel of joint stock companies, along with their board members and directors. It may also capture private sector individuals who are working on government-related projects, such as consultants to government projects, including temporary employees, experts appointed by the government or judiciary, or even employees of private companies contracted to provide public services. Employees of joint stock companies are also subject to the Anti-Bribery Law, as well as employees of companies and sole proprietorships engaged in banking services.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Anti-Bribery Law broadly defines a bribee as any public servant who solicits, accepts or receives for himself or for others, a gift or payment of any sort, or a promise thereof, as consideration for any act that impinges on the integrity of office. Defences against such practices are fortified by the absence of any exemption, caveat or even significant qualifying criteria for the type of act that could invoke bribery provisions. Any act can be considered corrupt, regardless of its legitimacy, whether it is a positive act or an omission, whether it has been done in the absence of a prior agreement, and even where it involves using the influence attached to a public office to gain benefit, rather than the performance of a relevant duty.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Given the traditionally prominent role of the government in the national economy, the Anti-Bribery Law does provide relatively wide protection, despite the obvious lack of corresponding safeguards applicable to the private sector. Privatisation targets encapsulated by Vision 2030, however, necessitate more complete protection and new measures that target both the public and private sector are a requirement going forward.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Penalties and Enforcement</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under the Anti-Bribery Law, penalties for the offences set out above can reach maximum penalties of imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and/or a fine not exceeding one million riyals (about USD 275,000).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Along with the specific penalties applicable to public servants who accept a bribe, it should be noted that the Anti-Bribery Law provides for the person offering the bribe (whether it is accepted or not), and any accomplice, to be susceptible to corresponding punishments.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">To protect a culture of respect for public officials, conviction on bribery offences also leads to dismissal and a bar from public office for a minimum of five years. In an attempt to prevent perpetrators from benefitting from the proceeds of crime, the Anti Bribery Law provides that any money, benefit or privilege derived from committal of the offence be confiscated wherever possible.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Gifts and Hospitality</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">No exemptions are provided for gifts and hospitality in the Anti-Bribery Law. Any benefit or privilege obtained by the bribee, regardless of its type or designation, whether material or otherwise, shall be considered a (prohibited) gift or promise. This has led to confusion in the past, as conventional business practices that would be widely accepted in other systems appeared to invoke the strict anti-bribery restrictions.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This matter was somewhat elucidated with the passing of the Rules on Gifts to Officials. Pursuant to these Rules, an official may accept gifts, given at visits and official occasions or at receptions of official guests, in accordance with custom and the courtesy protocols of such visits and occasions, though they cannot be cash and must be conventional in the context in which it is given. Crucially, businesses must be cognisant that generally, when reviewing the appositeness of a gift, the authorities will consider a number of contextual factors, including the proximity of the gift-giving to any relevant business deal, common courtesy practices of the firm in question, proportionality of the gift to conventional customs, and the appropriateness of the benefit given.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Though further provisions on the permissibility of certain types of gifts are outlined in the Rules, gifts and hospitality continue to be point of concern for business and can prove problematic in a culture where generosity is an ever-present feature of relations.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Exposure for Corporate Entities</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Significantly, where the manager or any employee of a private company is convicted of any offence under the Anti-Bribery Law, and the offence was committed for the benefit of such company, the law provides for a fine not exceeding ten times the value of the bribe and/or a ban from entering into public procurement or project contracts of at least 5 years. The briber can be exempted from punishment if he informs the authorities prior to the discovery of the offence, and this may provide some means by which corporate entities can limit their exposure upon becoming aware of any apparent offences under the Anti-Bribery Law.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Preparing for the Tempest: Bolstering Defences Ahead Of Reform</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">From a strategic perspective, since bribery is rarely an isolated issue, responses need to be thorough and comprehensive; part of an overarching coordinated national strategy that provides protection across an entire economic system and all branches of government. In order to ensure that such strategies are effective and aligned across institutions and businesses, they require constant monitoring and enforcement by a dedicated and independent authority, Where these institutions also act as the recipient in a sound and efficient reporting mechanism, the presence of a clear and trustworthy process increases the confidence of international investors.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Aside from the well-publicised arrests, Saudi Arabia’s corruption reform has extended to measures in other parts of its anti-corruption framework that have more sustainable implications for how it will address corrupt practices in future. These bold new mechanisms also enhance the country’s invigorated anti-corruption culture, which marks an abrupt departure from its previous presumed reticence on corruption matters.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"alignright wp-image-8011\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/676.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"528\" height=\"213\" /></br>Newly-formed Supreme Committee for Anti-Corruption</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The formation of the Supreme Committee is indicative of the greater strategic importance of anti-graft efforts to the country’s wider reform programme. Chaired by the Crown Prince and comprised of high-ranking officials from various sectors of governance, including security, finance and existing anti-corruption bodies, the Committee acts as a mechanism that will immediately elevate corruption instances to the remit of the highest echelons of government. In so doing, the Kingdom is sending a strong message that it will no longer turn a blind eye to practices that compromise its financial system or rule of law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The new Supreme Committee will have vastly advanced investigative and prosecutorial powers, including the capacity to issue arrest warrants and order interim measures such as issuing travel bans and asset freezing orders. This is a critical limitation of the existing National Anti-Corruption Commission, more commonly known as Nazaha, which was established in 2012 and has limited capacity, despite its function as the primary recipient of reports of corrupt activity. The new committee will not replace Nazaha, which will continue to target the protection of national integrity, investigate instances of graft in government contracts and refer any incidents to the relevant authorities and public prosecution as and when necessary.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">By coordinating the activities of both the Supreme Committee and Nazaha, the efficacy of existing measures will be boosted by covering a wider scope of prosecutorial powers, increased authority with which to pursue perpetrators, and greater scrutiny through public awareness.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Specialised Anti-corruption Units Within the Public Prosecution Department</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">As an additional measure, the Saudi government announced as recently as March 2018 that it had established new specialised anti-corruption units within the Public Prosecution. Cases prosecuted by these units would be carried out under the direct oversight of the Attorney General, once again demonstrating the paramount importance of corruption-related cases. Though it is unclear when the dedicated units will become operational, in creating this new advanced capacity the Saudi government has improved its ability to investigate and prosecute corrupt activity and, in so doing, will add an extra deterrent against illicit practices.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Whistleblower Culture</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Whistleblower protection is a significant point of departure in many regimes across the globe. Whilst some Western systems, such as the US, actively promote whistleblowing activity through substantial financial incentives, most countries in the Middle East have thus far been slow to introduce formal protection for whistleblowers, preferring instead to rely on a positive reporting duty and conscionable actions by citizens.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In this context, Saudi Arabia’s more proactive approach appears as an outlier. Article 17 of the Anti-Bribery Law provides for rewards for information substantiating an offence. Any person who is not a briber, or an accomplice, and who provides incriminating information substantiating any offence set out in Anti-Bribery Law, shall receive a reward not less than five thousand riyals (about USD 1,350) and not more than half of the money confiscated. There may be scope for a higher reward to be approved in appropriate circumstances.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition, King Salman’s recent order in May 2018 to provide whistle blower protection is progressive in its outlook and signifies Saudi Arabia’s willingness to accede to international standards of rights and transparency when it comes to prosecuting corruption crimes. If Saudi Arabia is mindful of the risks posed by the potential for spurious claims and introduces adequate measures to prevent abuse of the reporting system, whistle blower protection is yet a further measure that will likely serve to reinforce the culture of zero tolerance that Saudi Arabia is attempting to cultivate.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Impending Amendments to the Anti-Bribery Law</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 2 July 2018, Saudi Arabia’s Shoura (Consultative) Council approved draft amendments to the Anti-Bribery Law. The changes, which are yet to be implemented, are reportedly aimed at providing enhanced protection to public utilities through sound prosecution procedures and severe punishment for offences, as well as further enshrining the principles and commitments contained in the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). At present, the extent and exact nature of the amendments are unknown, but once officially passed into law, they have the potential to radically modernise Saudi Arabia’s anti-bribery legislation. This critical development warrants close attention over the coming months as the process to implementation progresses, and could assist investors in assessing the long-term outlook for Saudi Arabia’s economic integrity.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A Weather Eye on the Horizon: Is Further Change an Inevitability?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Anti-corruption measures are an ancillary part of the legal reform process in KSA, but do not represent the totality of the country’s ongoing transition. New money-laundering laws passed in October 2017 are emblematic of the Kingdom’s resolve to eradicate illicit practices from its system. Corruption is symptomatic of countries where there is weak rule of law, but Saudi Arabia’s legal fortifications will go a long way to stamping out the nexus of criminal behaviour that facilitates and drives corruption trends. These are important contributory factors that should be considered by foreign investors when making an assessment of Saudi Arabia’s economic security.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The changes that have already been implemented will only improve the prognosis of anti-corruption in Saudi Arabia. The continued momentum garnered from these initiatives will drive awareness of corruption problems, aided by the combined activity of Nazaha and the newly formed Supreme Committee for Anti-Corruption.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This is a pivotal time for Saudi Arabia and the long-term outlook is positive – there is already evidence of widespread reform to protect the Kingdom’s economic stability and integrity and address systemic weaknesses. Simultaneously, the changes that have been gradually introduced by Saudi Arabia’s General Investment Authority (SAGIA) since 2015 to liberalise the national economy and provide space for full foreign ownership in key sectors, are creating new incentive for foreign investors to tap into the largest market in the Middle East.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Equally, investors must strike the appropriate balance between caution and enthusiasm when encountering new opportunities in the market. Corruption challenges are persistent and pervasive and will require sustained redress for the foreseeable future. Though it is yet undetermined what new mechanisms and measures may be deployed in the Kingdom in future, it is likely that subsequent steps taken to quash illicit practices will have considerable consequences for domestic and foreign investors alike. This will require that foreign investors understand the legal framework and secure their interests against inevitable shifts in the Saudi market as reform measures revolutionise the domestic business culture.</p>\r\nOverall, however, Saudi Arabia’s recent multifaceted approach to reform has created the perfect storm for investors and, with an impending multitude of investment projects, businesses have a prime opportunity to invest at the leading edge of FDI, assured that corrupt practices are not operating with impunity.'),
(260222, 25251, 'MetaLink', 'content'),
(260223, 25251, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7939&amp;action=edit');
INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`) VALUES
(260224, 25251, 'ReportText', '<img class=\"size-full wp-image-8012 aligncenter\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/DG.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1536\" height=\"417\" />\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nSaudi Arabia is undergoing significant reform but, beyond the maelstrom of political speculation and conjecture, what are the practical and legal implications of the anti-corruption drive for investors?\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Saudi Arabia has seen tumultuous reform in the last 12 months as Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has sought to propel Saudi Arabia towards Vision 2030. International attention has been riveted to the government’s surging anti-corruption drive since a number of high-profile individuals were detained on corruption charges towards the end of 2017. Much of this attention, however, has been tangential, without providing clear insight into what impact such radical measures will have on the country’s legal framework and business climate.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A Favourable Forecast? The Business Outlook on Anti-Corruption</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The extent and boldness of the recent measures taken in Saudi Arabia are indicative of the government’s resolve to eliminate corruption in the system. The Kingdom has been signatory to the United National Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) since 2004, though it only ratified the agreement in 2013. The events that have garnered so much international attention are only the latest in a long-term initiative to address corrupt practices in the business sector. Between 2012 and 2017, Saudi Arabia has improved its score on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) from 44 to 49. Whilst this score still reflects significant room for improvement, it also charts measurable progress in a region that continues to face drastic change, and provides impetus for the more recent measures that clearly demonstrate the elevated priority of anti-corruption reform.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In order for the Kingdom to benefit from its drive for sustainability and prosperity, however, its determination to eradicate corruption must be symbiotic with its ability to assure investor confidence. The zero-tolerance approach that has surfaced over the past year has the potential to greatly improve the integrity of Saudi Arabia’s business market, but lingering concerns surround residual corruption with certain businesses continuing to question the feasibility and longevity of trading in the Kingdom.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTD) World Investment Report 2018 suggests that, in the short term at least, the anti-corruption drive has done little to improve investor confidence and may even have exacerbated feelings of uncertainty. Inward Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) flows have fallen by more than 80% between 2016 and 2017. Whilst this trend cannot be entirely attributed to the anti-corruption sweep that happened late in the final quarter of the year, it is certainly likely to have been a contributory factor in unsettling investor confidence. From a long-term perspective, however, efforts to level the playing field in Saudi Arabia may bring fairer weather to businesses as the obstacles associated with pervasive corruption are gradually eliminated from the system.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Saudi Arabia is far from being alone in its fight against corruption; it is one of the most prevalent and pressing issues facing systems across the globe, and countries with endemic corruption problems face an almost insurmountable challenge to attract foreign investment. At this nascent stage, it would be premature to speculate as to how other Middle Eastern countries will respond to the Kingdom’s efforts, but the most desirable outcome would be for neighbouring countries to become emboldened in their own anti-corruption efforts. The UAE already stands as the regional outlier in anti-corruption efforts, with a CPI 2017 ranking of 21st in the world, comparable to many leading international jurisdictions. The combined efforts of both Saudi Arabia and the UAE could be instrumental in forging a clear path to greater transparency for other afflicted countries in the Middle East.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Staying Dry: Legal Safeguards Against Corruption In The Kingdom</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The primary anti-corruption provisions are provided by the anti-bribery law issued by Royal Decree No. M/36 of 29-Dhu al-Hijjah-1412 (corresponding to 30 June 1996) (the \"Anti-Bribery Law\"). More recently, a decree was issued setting out rules relating to gifts for public officials (Decree No. 60 dated 18 Safar 1437H (corresponding to 1 December 2015) (the \"Rules on Gifts to Officials\" or the \"Rules\").</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Bribery of Public Officials</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Anti-Bribery Law is primarily focused on public servants. In order to maintain maximum protection for its public sector, the definition is intentionally broad, extending to personnel of joint stock companies, along with their board members and directors. It may also capture private sector individuals who are working on government-related projects, such as consultants to government projects, including temporary employees, experts appointed by the government or judiciary, or even employees of private companies contracted to provide public services. Employees of joint stock companies are also subject to the Anti-Bribery Law, as well as employees of companies and sole proprietorships engaged in banking services.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Anti-Bribery Law broadly defines a bribee as any public servant who solicits, accepts or receives for himself or for others, a gift or payment of any sort, or a promise thereof, as consideration for any act that impinges on the integrity of office. Defences against such practices are fortified by the absence of any exemption, caveat or even significant qualifying criteria for the type of act that could invoke bribery provisions. Any act can be considered corrupt, regardless of its legitimacy, whether it is a positive act or an omission, whether it has been done in the absence of a prior agreement, and even where it involves using the influence attached to a public office to gain benefit, rather than the performance of a relevant duty.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Given the traditionally prominent role of the government in the national economy, the Anti-Bribery Law does provide relatively wide protection, despite the obvious lack of corresponding safeguards applicable to the private sector. Privatisation targets encapsulated by Vision 2030, however, necessitate more complete protection and new measures that target both the public and private sector are a requirement going forward.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Penalties and Enforcement</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under the Anti-Bribery Law, penalties for the offences set out above can reach maximum penalties of imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and/or a fine not exceeding one million riyals (about USD 275,000).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Along with the specific penalties applicable to public servants who accept a bribe, it should be noted that the Anti-Bribery Law provides for the person offering the bribe (whether it is accepted or not), and any accomplice, to be susceptible to corresponding punishments.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">To protect a culture of respect for public officials, conviction on bribery offences also leads to dismissal and a bar from public office for a minimum of five years. In an attempt to prevent perpetrators from benefitting from the proceeds of crime, the Anti Bribery Law provides that any money, benefit or privilege derived from committal of the offence be confiscated wherever possible.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Gifts and Hospitality</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">No exemptions are provided for gifts and hospitality in the Anti-Bribery Law. Any benefit or privilege obtained by the bribee, regardless of its type or designation, whether material or otherwise, shall be considered a (prohibited) gift or promise. This has led to confusion in the past, as conventional business practices that would be widely accepted in other systems appeared to invoke the strict anti-bribery restrictions.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This matter was somewhat elucidated with the passing of the Rules on Gifts to Officials. Pursuant to these Rules, an official may accept gifts, given at visits and official occasions or at receptions of official guests, in accordance with custom and the courtesy protocols of such visits and occasions, though they cannot be cash and must be conventional in the context in which it is given. Crucially, businesses must be cognisant that generally, when reviewing the appositeness of a gift, the authorities will consider a number of contextual factors, including the proximity of the gift-giving to any relevant business deal, common courtesy practices of the firm in question, proportionality of the gift to conventional customs, and the appropriateness of the benefit given.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Though further provisions on the permissibility of certain types of gifts are outlined in the Rules, gifts and hospitality continue to be point of concern for business and can prove problematic in a culture where generosity is an ever-present feature of relations.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Exposure for Corporate Entities</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Significantly, where the manager or any employee of a private company is convicted of any offence under the Anti-Bribery Law, and the offence was committed for the benefit of such company, the law provides for a fine not exceeding ten times the value of the bribe and/or a ban from entering into public procurement or project contracts of at least 5 years. The briber can be exempted from punishment if he informs the authorities prior to the discovery of the offence, and this may provide some means by which corporate entities can limit their exposure upon becoming aware of any apparent offences under the Anti-Bribery Law.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Preparing for the Tempest: Bolstering Defences Ahead Of Reform</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">From a strategic perspective, since bribery is rarely an isolated issue, responses need to be thorough and comprehensive; part of an overarching coordinated national strategy that provides protection across an entire economic system and all branches of government. In order to ensure that such strategies are effective and aligned across institutions and businesses, they require constant monitoring and enforcement by a dedicated and independent authority, Where these institutions also act as the recipient in a sound and efficient reporting mechanism, the presence of a clear and trustworthy process increases the confidence of international investors.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Aside from the well-publicised arrests, Saudi Arabia’s corruption reform has extended to measures in other parts of its anti-corruption framework that have more sustainable implications for how it will address corrupt practices in future. These bold new mechanisms also enhance the country’s invigorated anti-corruption culture, which marks an abrupt departure from its previous presumed reticence on corruption matters.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"alignright wp-image-8011\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/676.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"528\" height=\"213\" /></br>Newly-formed Supreme Committee for Anti-Corruption</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The formation of the Supreme Committee is indicative of the greater strategic importance of anti-graft efforts to the country’s wider reform programme. Chaired by the Crown Prince and comprised of high-ranking officials from various sectors of governance, including security, finance and existing anti-corruption bodies, the Committee acts as a mechanism that will immediately elevate corruption instances to the remit of the highest echelons of government. In so doing, the Kingdom is sending a strong message that it will no longer turn a blind eye to practices that compromise its financial system or rule of law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The new Supreme Committee will have vastly advanced investigative and prosecutorial powers, including the capacity to issue arrest warrants and order interim measures such as issuing travel bans and asset freezing orders. This is a critical limitation of the existing National Anti-Corruption Commission, more commonly known as Nazaha, which was established in 2012 and has limited capacity, despite its function as the primary recipient of reports of corrupt activity. The new committee will not replace Nazaha, which will continue to target the protection of national integrity, investigate instances of graft in government contracts and refer any incidents to the relevant authorities and public prosecution as and when necessary.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">By coordinating the activities of both the Supreme Committee and Nazaha, the efficacy of existing measures will be boosted by covering a wider scope of prosecutorial powers, increased authority with which to pursue perpetrators, and greater scrutiny through public awareness.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Specialised Anti-corruption Units Within the Public Prosecution Department</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">As an additional measure, the Saudi government announced as recently as March 2018 that it had established new specialised anti-corruption units within the Public Prosecution. Cases prosecuted by these units would be carried out under the direct oversight of the Attorney General, once again demonstrating the paramount importance of corruption-related cases. Though it is unclear when the dedicated units will become operational, in creating this new advanced capacity the Saudi government has improved its ability to investigate and prosecute corrupt activity and, in so doing, will add an extra deterrent against illicit practices.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Whistleblower Culture</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Whistleblower protection is a significant point of departure in many regimes across the globe. Whilst some Western systems, such as the US, actively promote whistleblowing activity through substantial financial incentives, most countries in the Middle East have thus far been slow to introduce formal protection for whistleblowers, preferring instead to rely on a positive reporting duty and conscionable actions by citizens.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In this context, Saudi Arabia’s more proactive approach appears as an outlier. Article 17 of the Anti-Bribery Law provides for rewards for information substantiating an offence. Any person who is not a briber, or an accomplice, and who provides incriminating information substantiating any offence set out in Anti-Bribery Law, shall receive a reward not less than five thousand riyals (about USD 1,350) and not more than half of the money confiscated. There may be scope for a higher reward to be approved in appropriate circumstances.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition, King Salman’s recent order in May 2018 to provide whistle blower protection is progressive in its outlook and signifies Saudi Arabia’s willingness to accede to international standards of rights and transparency when it comes to prosecuting corruption crimes. If Saudi Arabia is mindful of the risks posed by the potential for spurious claims and introduces adequate measures to prevent abuse of the reporting system, whistle blower protection is yet a further measure that will likely serve to reinforce the culture of zero tolerance that Saudi Arabia is attempting to cultivate.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Impending Amendments to the Anti-Bribery Law</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 2 July 2018, Saudi Arabia’s Shoura (Consultative) Council approved draft amendments to the Anti-Bribery Law. The changes, which are yet to be implemented, are reportedly aimed at providing enhanced protection to public utilities through sound prosecution procedures and severe punishment for offences, as well as further enshrining the principles and commitments contained in the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). At present, the extent and exact nature of the amendments are unknown, but once officially passed into law, they have the potential to radically modernise Saudi Arabia’s anti-bribery legislation. This critical development warrants close attention over the coming months as the process to implementation progresses, and could assist investors in assessing the long-term outlook for Saudi Arabia’s economic integrity.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A Weather Eye on the Horizon: Is Further Change an Inevitability?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Anti-corruption measures are an ancillary part of the legal reform process in KSA, but do not represent the totality of the country’s ongoing transition. New money-laundering laws passed in October 2017 are emblematic of the Kingdom’s resolve to eradicate illicit practices from its system. Corruption is symptomatic of countries where there is weak rule of law, but Saudi Arabia’s legal fortifications will go a long way to stamping out the nexus of criminal behaviour that facilitates and drives corruption trends. These are important contributory factors that should be considered by foreign investors when making an assessment of Saudi Arabia’s economic security.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The changes that have already been implemented will only improve the prognosis of anti-corruption in Saudi Arabia. The continued momentum garnered from these initiatives will drive awareness of corruption problems, aided by the combined activity of Nazaha and the newly formed Supreme Committee for Anti-Corruption.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This is a pivotal time for Saudi Arabia and the long-term outlook is positive – there is already evidence of widespread reform to protect the Kingdom’s economic stability and integrity and address systemic weaknesses. Simultaneously, the changes that have been gradually introduced by Saudi Arabia’s General Investment Authority (SAGIA) since 2015 to liberalise the national economy and provide space for full foreign ownership in key sectors, are creating new incentive for foreign investors to tap into the largest market in the Middle East.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Equally, investors must strike the appropriate balance between caution and enthusiasm when encountering new opportunities in the market. Corruption challenges are persistent and pervasive and will require sustained redress for the foreseeable future. Though it is yet undetermined what new mechanisms and measures may be deployed in the Kingdom in future, it is likely that subsequent steps taken to quash illicit practices will have considerable consequences for domestic and foreign investors alike. This will require that foreign investors understand the legal framework and secure their interests against inevitable shifts in the Saudi market as reform measures revolutionise the domestic business culture.</p>\r\nOverall, however, Saudi Arabia’s recent multifaceted approach to reform has created the perfect storm for investors and, with an impending multitude of investment projects, businesses have a prime opportunity to invest at the leading edge of FDI, assured that corrupt practices are not operating with impunity.|<img class=\"size-full wp-image-8012 aligncenter\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/DG.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1536\" height=\"417\" />\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nSaudi Arabia is undergoing significant reform but, beyond the maelstrom of political speculation and conjecture, what are the practical and legal implications of the anti-corruption drive for investors?\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Saudi Arabia has seen tumultuous reform in the last 12 months as Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has sought to propel Saudi Arabia towards Vision 2030. International attention has been riveted to the government’s surging anti-corruption drive since a number of high-profile individuals were detained on corruption charges towards the end of 2017. Much of this attention, however, has been tangential, without providing clear insight into what impact such radical measures will have on the country’s legal framework and business climate.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A Favourable Forecast? The Business Outlook on Anti-Corruption</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The extent and boldness of the recent measures taken in Saudi Arabia are indicative of the government’s resolve to eliminate corruption in the system. The Kingdom has been signatory to the United National Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) since 2004, though it only ratified the agreement in 2013. The events that have garnered so much international attention are only the latest in a long-term initiative to address corrupt practices in the business sector. Between 2012 and 2017, Saudi Arabia has improved its score on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) from 44 to 49. Whilst this score still reflects significant room for improvement, it also charts measurable progress in a region that continues to face drastic change, and provides impetus for the more recent measures that clearly demonstrate the elevated priority of anti-corruption reform.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In order for the Kingdom to benefit from its drive for sustainability and prosperity, however, its determination to eradicate corruption must be symbiotic with its ability to assure investor confidence. The zero-tolerance approach that has surfaced over the past year has the potential to greatly improve the integrity of Saudi Arabia’s business market, but lingering concerns surround residual corruption with certain businesses continuing to question the feasibility and longevity of trading in the Kingdom.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTD) World Investment Report 2018 suggests that, in the short term at least, the anti-corruption drive has done little to improve investor confidence and may even have exacerbated feelings of uncertainty. Inward Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) flows have fallen by more than 80% between 2016 and 2017. Whilst this trend cannot be entirely attributed to the anti-corruption sweep that happened late in the final quarter of the year, it is certainly likely to have been a contributory factor in unsettling investor confidence. From a long-term perspective, however, efforts to level the playing field in Saudi Arabia may bring fairer weather to businesses as the obstacles associated with pervasive corruption are gradually eliminated from the system.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Saudi Arabia is far from being alone in its fight against corruption; it is one of the most prevalent and pressing issues facing systems across the globe, and countries with endemic corruption problems face an almost insurmountable challenge to attract foreign investment. At this nascent stage, it would be premature to speculate as to how other Middle Eastern countries will respond to the Kingdom’s efforts, but the most desirable outcome would be for neighbouring countries to become emboldened in their own anti-corruption efforts. The UAE already stands as the regional outlier in anti-corruption efforts, with a CPI 2017 ranking of 21st in the world, comparable to many leading international jurisdictions. The combined efforts of both Saudi Arabia and the UAE could be instrumental in forging a clear path to greater transparency for other afflicted countries in the Middle East.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Staying Dry: Legal Safeguards Against Corruption In The Kingdom</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The primary anti-corruption provisions are provided by the anti-bribery law issued by Royal Decree No. M/36 of 29-Dhu al-Hijjah-1412 (corresponding to 30 June 1996) (the \"Anti-Bribery Law\"). More recently, a decree was issued setting out rules relating to gifts for public officials (Decree No. 60 dated 18 Safar 1437H (corresponding to 1 December 2015) (the \"Rules on Gifts to Officials\" or the \"Rules\").</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Bribery of Public Officials</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Anti-Bribery Law is primarily focused on public servants. In order to maintain maximum protection for its public sector, the definition is intentionally broad, extending to personnel of joint stock companies, along with their board members and directors. It may also capture private sector individuals who are working on government-related projects, such as consultants to government projects, including temporary employees, experts appointed by the government or judiciary, or even employees of private companies contracted to provide public services. Employees of joint stock companies are also subject to the Anti-Bribery Law, as well as employees of companies and sole proprietorships engaged in banking services.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Anti-Bribery Law broadly defines a bribee as any public servant who solicits, accepts or receives for himself or for others, a gift or payment of any sort, or a promise thereof, as consideration for any act that impinges on the integrity of office. Defences against such practices are fortified by the absence of any exemption, caveat or even significant qualifying criteria for the type of act that could invoke bribery provisions. Any act can be considered corrupt, regardless of its legitimacy, whether it is a positive act or an omission, whether it has been done in the absence of a prior agreement, and even where it involves using the influence attached to a public office to gain benefit, rather than the performance of a relevant duty.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Given the traditionally prominent role of the government in the national economy, the Anti-Bribery Law does provide relatively wide protection, despite the obvious lack of corresponding safeguards applicable to the private sector. Privatisation targets encapsulated by Vision 2030, however, necessitate more complete protection and new measures that target both the public and private sector are a requirement going forward.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Penalties and Enforcement</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under the Anti-Bribery Law, penalties for the offences set out above can reach maximum penalties of imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and/or a fine not exceeding one million riyals (about USD 275,000).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Along with the specific penalties applicable to public servants who accept a bribe, it should be noted that the Anti-Bribery Law provides for the person offering the bribe (whether it is accepted or not), and any accomplice, to be susceptible to corresponding punishments.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">To protect a culture of respect for public officials, conviction on bribery offences also leads to dismissal and a bar from public office for a minimum of five years. In an attempt to prevent perpetrators from benefitting from the proceeds of crime, the Anti Bribery Law provides that any money, benefit or privilege derived from committal of the offence be confiscated wherever possible.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Gifts and Hospitality</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">No exemptions are provided for gifts and hospitality in the Anti-Bribery Law. Any benefit or privilege obtained by the bribee, regardless of its type or designation, whether material or otherwise, shall be considered a (prohibited) gift or promise. This has led to confusion in the past, as conventional business practices that would be widely accepted in other systems appeared to invoke the strict anti-bribery restrictions.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This matter was somewhat elucidated with the passing of the Rules on Gifts to Officials. Pursuant to these Rules, an official may accept gifts, given at visits and official occasions or at receptions of official guests, in accordance with custom and the courtesy protocols of such visits and occasions, though they cannot be cash and must be conventional in the context in which it is given. Crucially, businesses must be cognisant that generally, when reviewing the appositeness of a gift, the authorities will consider a number of contextual factors, including the proximity of the gift-giving to any relevant business deal, common courtesy practices of the firm in question, proportionality of the gift to conventional customs, and the appropriateness of the benefit given.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Though further provisions on the permissibility of certain types of gifts are outlined in the Rules, gifts and hospitality continue to be point of concern for business and can prove problematic in a culture where generosity is an ever-present feature of relations.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Exposure for Corporate Entities</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Significantly, where the manager or any employee of a private company is convicted of any offence under the Anti-Bribery Law, and the offence was committed for the benefit of such company, the law provides for a fine not exceeding ten times the value of the bribe and/or a ban from entering into public procurement or project contracts of at least 5 years. The briber can be exempted from punishment if he informs the authorities prior to the discovery of the offence, and this may provide some means by which corporate entities can limit their exposure upon becoming aware of any apparent offences under the Anti-Bribery Law.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Preparing for the Tempest: Bolstering Defences Ahead Of Reform</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">From a strategic perspective, since bribery is rarely an isolated issue, responses need to be thorough and comprehensive; part of an overarching coordinated national strategy that provides protection across an entire economic system and all branches of government. In order to ensure that such strategies are effective and aligned across institutions and businesses, they require constant monitoring and enforcement by a dedicated and independent authority, Where these institutions also act as the recipient in a sound and efficient reporting mechanism, the presence of a clear and trustworthy process increases the confidence of international investors.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Aside from the well-publicised arrests, Saudi Arabia’s corruption reform has extended to measures in other parts of its anti-corruption framework that have more sustainable implications for how it will address corrupt practices in future. These bold new mechanisms also enhance the country’s invigorated anti-corruption culture, which marks an abrupt departure from its previous presumed reticence on corruption matters.</p>\r\n</br><p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"alignright wp-image-8011\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/676.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"528\" height=\"213\" /></br>Newly-formed Supreme Committee for Anti-Corruption</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The formation of the Supreme Committee is indicative of the greater strategic importance of anti-graft efforts to the country’s wider reform programme. Chaired by the Crown Prince and comprised of high-ranking officials from various sectors of governance, including security, finance and existing anti-corruption bodies, the Committee acts as a mechanism that will immediately elevate corruption instances to the remit of the highest echelons of government. In so doing, the Kingdom is sending a strong message that it will no longer turn a blind eye to practices that compromise its financial system or rule of law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The new Supreme Committee will have vastly advanced investigative and prosecutorial powers, including the capacity to issue arrest warrants and order interim measures such as issuing travel bans and asset freezing orders. This is a critical limitation of the existing National Anti-Corruption Commission, more commonly known as Nazaha, which was established in 2012 and has limited capacity, despite its function as the primary recipient of reports of corrupt activity. The new committee will not replace Nazaha, which will continue to target the protection of national integrity, investigate instances of graft in government contracts and refer any incidents to the relevant authorities and public prosecution as and when necessary.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">By coordinating the activities of both the Supreme Committee and Nazaha, the efficacy of existing measures will be boosted by covering a wider scope of prosecutorial powers, increased authority with which to pursue perpetrators, and greater scrutiny through public awareness.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Specialised Anti-corruption Units Within the Public Prosecution Department</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">As an additional measure, the Saudi government announced as recently as March 2018 that it had established new specialised anti-corruption units within the Public Prosecution. Cases prosecuted by these units would be carried out under the direct oversight of the Attorney General, once again demonstrating the paramount importance of corruption-related cases. Though it is unclear when the dedicated units will become operational, in creating this new advanced capacity the Saudi government has improved its ability to investigate and prosecute corrupt activity and, in so doing, will add an extra deterrent against illicit practices.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Whistleblower Culture</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Whistleblower protection is a significant point of departure in many regimes across the globe. Whilst some Western systems, such as the US, actively promote whistleblowing activity through substantial financial incentives, most countries in the Middle East have thus far been slow to introduce formal protection for whistleblowers, preferring instead to rely on a positive reporting duty and conscionable actions by citizens.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In this context, Saudi Arabia’s more proactive approach appears as an outlier. Article 17 of the Anti-Bribery Law provides for rewards for information substantiating an offence. Any person who is not a briber, or an accomplice, and who provides incriminating information substantiating any offence set out in Anti-Bribery Law, shall receive a reward not less than five thousand riyals (about USD 1,350) and not more than half of the money confiscated. There may be scope for a higher reward to be approved in appropriate circumstances.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition, King Salman’s recent order in May 2018 to provide whistle blower protection is progressive in its outlook and signifies Saudi Arabia’s willingness to accede to international standards of rights and transparency when it comes to prosecuting corruption crimes. If Saudi Arabia is mindful of the risks posed by the potential for spurious claims and introduces adequate measures to prevent abuse of the reporting system, whistle blower protection is yet a further measure that will likely serve to reinforce the culture of zero tolerance that Saudi Arabia is attempting to cultivate.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Impending Amendments to the Anti-Bribery Law</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 2 July 2018, Saudi Arabia’s Shoura (Consultative) Council approved draft amendments to the Anti-Bribery Law. The changes, which are yet to be implemented, are reportedly aimed at providing enhanced protection to public utilities through sound prosecution procedures and severe punishment for offences, as well as further enshrining the principles and commitments contained in the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). At present, the extent and exact nature of the amendments are unknown, but once officially passed into law, they have the potential to radically modernise Saudi Arabia’s anti-bribery legislation. This critical development warrants close attention over the coming months as the process to implementation progresses, and could assist investors in assessing the long-term outlook for Saudi Arabia’s economic integrity.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A Weather Eye on the Horizon: Is Further Change an Inevitability?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Anti-corruption measures are an ancillary part of the legal reform process in KSA, but do not represent the totality of the country’s ongoing transition. New money-laundering laws passed in October 2017 are emblematic of the Kingdom’s resolve to eradicate illicit practices from its system. Corruption is symptomatic of countries where there is weak rule of law, but Saudi Arabia’s legal fortifications will go a long way to stamping out the nexus of criminal behaviour that facilitates and drives corruption trends. These are important contributory factors that should be considered by foreign investors when making an assessment of Saudi Arabia’s economic security.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The changes that have already been implemented will only improve the prognosis of anti-corruption in Saudi Arabia. The continued momentum garnered from these initiatives will drive awareness of corruption problems, aided by the combined activity of Nazaha and the newly formed Supreme Committee for Anti-Corruption.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This is a pivotal time for Saudi Arabia and the long-term outlook is positive – there is already evidence of widespread reform to protect the Kingdom’s economic stability and integrity and address systemic weaknesses. Simultaneously, the changes that have been gradually introduced by Saudi Arabia’s General Investment Authority (SAGIA) since 2015 to liberalise the national economy and provide space for full foreign ownership in key sectors, are creating new incentive for foreign investors to tap into the largest market in the Middle East.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Equally, investors must strike the appropriate balance between caution and enthusiasm when encountering new opportunities in the market. Corruption challenges are persistent and pervasive and will require sustained redress for the foreseeable future. Though it is yet undetermined what new mechanisms and measures may be deployed in the Kingdom in future, it is likely that subsequent steps taken to quash illicit practices will have considerable consequences for domestic and foreign investors alike. This will require that foreign investors understand the legal framework and secure their interests against inevitable shifts in the Saudi market as reform measures revolutionise the domestic business culture.</p>\r\nOverall, however, Saudi Arabia’s recent multifaceted approach to reform has created the perfect storm for investors and, with an impending multitude of investment projects, businesses have a prime opportunity to invest at the leading edge of FDI, assured that corrupt practices are not operating with impunity.'),
(260225, 25251, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(260226, 25251, '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'),
(260227, 25251, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(260228, 25251, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(260229, 25252, 'PostID', '7939'),
(260230, 25252, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(260231, 25252, 'PostTitle', 'The Calm After the Storm: Saudi Arabia’s Anti-Corruption Tornado and the Investor Impact'),
(260232, 25252, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(260233, 25252, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:41:29'),
(260234, 25252, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/the-calm-after-the-storm-saudi-arabias-anti-corruption-tornado-and-the-investor-impact/'),
(260235, 25252, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7939&amp;action=edit'),
(260236, 25252, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(260237, 25252, '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'),
(260238, 25252, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(260239, 25252, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(260240, 25253, 'PostID', '7939'),
(260241, 25253, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(260242, 25253, 'PostTitle', 'The Calm After the Storm: Saudi Arabia’s Anti-Corruption Tornado and the Investor Impact'),
(260243, 25253, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(260244, 25253, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:41:29'),
(260245, 25253, 'PostUrl', 'https://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/the-calm-after-the-storm-saudi-arabias-anti-corruption-tornado-and-the-investor-impact/'),
(260246, 25253, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7939&amp;action=edit'),
(260247, 25253, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(260248, 25253, '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'),
(260249, 25253, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(260250, 25253, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(260251, 25254, 'PostID', '7939'),
(260252, 25254, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(260253, 25254, 'PostTitle', 'The Calm After the Storm: Saudi Arabia’s Anti-Corruption Tornado and the Investor Impact'),
(260254, 25254, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(260255, 25254, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:41:29'),
(260256, 25254, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/the-calm-after-the-storm-saudi-arabias-anti-corruption-tornado-and-the-investor-impact/'),
(260257, 25254, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7939&amp;action=edit'),
(260258, 25254, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(260259, 25254, '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'),
(260260, 25254, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(260261, 25254, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(260262, 25255, 'PostID', '7939'),
(260263, 25255, 'PostTitle', 'The Calm After the Storm: Saudi Arabia’s Anti-Corruption Tornado and the Investor Impact'),
(260264, 25255, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(260265, 25255, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(260266, 25255, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:41:29'),
(260267, 25255, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/the-calm-after-the-storm-saudi-arabias-anti-corruption-tornado-and-the-investor-impact/'),
(260268, 25255, 'MetaID', '223266'),
(260269, 25255, 'MetaKey', 'content');
INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`) VALUES
(260270, 25255, 'MetaValueNew', '<img class=\"size-full wp-image-8012 aligncenter\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/DG.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1536\" height=\"417\" />\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nSaudi Arabia is undergoing significant reform but, beyond the maelstrom of political speculation and conjecture, what are the practical and legal implications of the anti-corruption drive for investors?\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Saudi Arabia has seen tumultuous reform in the last 12 months as Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has sought to propel Saudi Arabia towards Vision 2030. International attention has been riveted to the government’s surging anti-corruption drive since a number of high-profile individuals were detained on corruption charges towards the end of 2017. Much of this attention, however, has been tangential, without providing clear insight into what impact such radical measures will have on the country’s legal framework and business climate.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A Favourable Forecast? The Business Outlook on Anti-Corruption</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The extent and boldness of the recent measures taken in Saudi Arabia are indicative of the government’s resolve to eliminate corruption in the system. The Kingdom has been signatory to the United National Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) since 2004, though it only ratified the agreement in 2013. The events that have garnered so much international attention are only the latest in a long-term initiative to address corrupt practices in the business sector. Between 2012 and 2017, Saudi Arabia has improved its score on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) from 44 to 49. Whilst this score still reflects significant room for improvement, it also charts measurable progress in a region that continues to face drastic change, and provides impetus for the more recent measures that clearly demonstrate the elevated priority of anti-corruption reform.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In order for the Kingdom to benefit from its drive for sustainability and prosperity, however, its determination to eradicate corruption must be symbiotic with its ability to assure investor confidence. The zero-tolerance approach that has surfaced over the past year has the potential to greatly improve the integrity of Saudi Arabia’s business market, but lingering concerns surround residual corruption with certain businesses continuing to question the feasibility and longevity of trading in the Kingdom.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTD) World Investment Report 2018 suggests that, in the short term at least, the anti-corruption drive has done little to improve investor confidence and may even have exacerbated feelings of uncertainty. Inward Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) flows have fallen by more than 80% between 2016 and 2017. Whilst this trend cannot be entirely attributed to the anti-corruption sweep that happened late in the final quarter of the year, it is certainly likely to have been a contributory factor in unsettling investor confidence. From a long-term perspective, however, efforts to level the playing field in Saudi Arabia may bring fairer weather to businesses as the obstacles associated with pervasive corruption are gradually eliminated from the system.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Saudi Arabia is far from being alone in its fight against corruption; it is one of the most prevalent and pressing issues facing systems across the globe, and countries with endemic corruption problems face an almost insurmountable challenge to attract foreign investment. At this nascent stage, it would be premature to speculate as to how other Middle Eastern countries will respond to the Kingdom’s efforts, but the most desirable outcome would be for neighbouring countries to become emboldened in their own anti-corruption efforts. The UAE already stands as the regional outlier in anti-corruption efforts, with a CPI 2017 ranking of 21st in the world, comparable to many leading international jurisdictions. The combined efforts of both Saudi Arabia and the UAE could be instrumental in forging a clear path to greater transparency for other afflicted countries in the Middle East.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Staying Dry: Legal Safeguards Against Corruption In The Kingdom</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The primary anti-corruption provisions are provided by the anti-bribery law issued by Royal Decree No. M/36 of 29-Dhu al-Hijjah-1412 (corresponding to 30 June 1996) (the \"Anti-Bribery Law\"). More recently, a decree was issued setting out rules relating to gifts for public officials (Decree No. 60 dated 18 Safar 1437H (corresponding to 1 December 2015) (the \"Rules on Gifts to Officials\" or the \"Rules\").</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Bribery of Public Officials</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Anti-Bribery Law is primarily focused on public servants. In order to maintain maximum protection for its public sector, the definition is intentionally broad, extending to personnel of joint stock companies, along with their board members and directors. It may also capture private sector individuals who are working on government-related projects, such as consultants to government projects, including temporary employees, experts appointed by the government or judiciary, or even employees of private companies contracted to provide public services. Employees of joint stock companies are also subject to the Anti-Bribery Law, as well as employees of companies and sole proprietorships engaged in banking services.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Anti-Bribery Law broadly defines a bribee as any public servant who solicits, accepts or receives for himself or for others, a gift or payment of any sort, or a promise thereof, as consideration for any act that impinges on the integrity of office. Defences against such practices are fortified by the absence of any exemption, caveat or even significant qualifying criteria for the type of act that could invoke bribery provisions. Any act can be considered corrupt, regardless of its legitimacy, whether it is a positive act or an omission, whether it has been done in the absence of a prior agreement, and even where it involves using the influence attached to a public office to gain benefit, rather than the performance of a relevant duty.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Given the traditionally prominent role of the government in the national economy, the Anti-Bribery Law does provide relatively wide protection, despite the obvious lack of corresponding safeguards applicable to the private sector. Privatisation targets encapsulated by Vision 2030, however, necessitate more complete protection and new measures that target both the public and private sector are a requirement going forward.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Penalties and Enforcement</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under the Anti-Bribery Law, penalties for the offences set out above can reach maximum penalties of imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and/or a fine not exceeding one million riyals (about USD 275,000).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Along with the specific penalties applicable to public servants who accept a bribe, it should be noted that the Anti-Bribery Law provides for the person offering the bribe (whether it is accepted or not), and any accomplice, to be susceptible to corresponding punishments.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">To protect a culture of respect for public officials, conviction on bribery offences also leads to dismissal and a bar from public office for a minimum of five years. In an attempt to prevent perpetrators from benefitting from the proceeds of crime, the Anti Bribery Law provides that any money, benefit or privilege derived from committal of the offence be confiscated wherever possible.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Gifts and Hospitality</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">No exemptions are provided for gifts and hospitality in the Anti-Bribery Law. Any benefit or privilege obtained by the bribee, regardless of its type or designation, whether material or otherwise, shall be considered a (prohibited) gift or promise. This has led to confusion in the past, as conventional business practices that would be widely accepted in other systems appeared to invoke the strict anti-bribery restrictions.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This matter was somewhat elucidated with the passing of the Rules on Gifts to Officials. Pursuant to these Rules, an official may accept gifts, given at visits and official occasions or at receptions of official guests, in accordance with custom and the courtesy protocols of such visits and occasions, though they cannot be cash and must be conventional in the context in which it is given. Crucially, businesses must be cognisant that generally, when reviewing the appositeness of a gift, the authorities will consider a number of contextual factors, including the proximity of the gift-giving to any relevant business deal, common courtesy practices of the firm in question, proportionality of the gift to conventional customs, and the appropriateness of the benefit given.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Though further provisions on the permissibility of certain types of gifts are outlined in the Rules, gifts and hospitality continue to be point of concern for business and can prove problematic in a culture where generosity is an ever-present feature of relations.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Exposure for Corporate Entities</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Significantly, where the manager or any employee of a private company is convicted of any offence under the Anti-Bribery Law, and the offence was committed for the benefit of such company, the law provides for a fine not exceeding ten times the value of the bribe and/or a ban from entering into public procurement or project contracts of at least 5 years. The briber can be exempted from punishment if he informs the authorities prior to the discovery of the offence, and this may provide some means by which corporate entities can limit their exposure upon becoming aware of any apparent offences under the Anti-Bribery Law.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Preparing for the Tempest: Bolstering Defences Ahead Of Reform</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">From a strategic perspective, since bribery is rarely an isolated issue, responses need to be thorough and comprehensive; part of an overarching coordinated national strategy that provides protection across an entire economic system and all branches of government. In order to ensure that such strategies are effective and aligned across institutions and businesses, they require constant monitoring and enforcement by a dedicated and independent authority, Where these institutions also act as the recipient in a sound and efficient reporting mechanism, the presence of a clear and trustworthy process increases the confidence of international investors.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Aside from the well-publicised arrests, Saudi Arabia’s corruption reform has extended to measures in other parts of its anti-corruption framework that have more sustainable implications for how it will address corrupt practices in future. These bold new mechanisms also enhance the country’s invigorated anti-corruption culture, which marks an abrupt departure from its previous presumed reticence on corruption matters.</p>\r\n</br><p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"alignright wp-image-8011\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/676.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"528\" height=\"213\" />Newly-formed Supreme Committee for Anti-Corruption</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The formation of the Supreme Committee is indicative of the greater strategic importance of anti-graft efforts to the country’s wider reform programme. Chaired by the Crown Prince and comprised of high-ranking officials from various sectors of governance, including security, finance and existing anti-corruption bodies, the Committee acts as a mechanism that will immediately elevate corruption instances to the remit of the highest echelons of government. In so doing, the Kingdom is sending a strong message that it will no longer turn a blind eye to practices that compromise its financial system or rule of law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The new Supreme Committee will have vastly advanced investigative and prosecutorial powers, including the capacity to issue arrest warrants and order interim measures such as issuing travel bans and asset freezing orders. This is a critical limitation of the existing National Anti-Corruption Commission, more commonly known as Nazaha, which was established in 2012 and has limited capacity, despite its function as the primary recipient of reports of corrupt activity. The new committee will not replace Nazaha, which will continue to target the protection of national integrity, investigate instances of graft in government contracts and refer any incidents to the relevant authorities and public prosecution as and when necessary.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">By coordinating the activities of both the Supreme Committee and Nazaha, the efficacy of existing measures will be boosted by covering a wider scope of prosecutorial powers, increased authority with which to pursue perpetrators, and greater scrutiny through public awareness.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Specialised Anti-corruption Units Within the Public Prosecution Department</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">As an additional measure, the Saudi government announced as recently as March 2018 that it had established new specialised anti-corruption units within the Public Prosecution. Cases prosecuted by these units would be carried out under the direct oversight of the Attorney General, once again demonstrating the paramount importance of corruption-related cases. Though it is unclear when the dedicated units will become operational, in creating this new advanced capacity the Saudi government has improved its ability to investigate and prosecute corrupt activity and, in so doing, will add an extra deterrent against illicit practices.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Whistleblower Culture</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Whistleblower protection is a significant point of departure in many regimes across the globe. Whilst some Western systems, such as the US, actively promote whistleblowing activity through substantial financial incentives, most countries in the Middle East have thus far been slow to introduce formal protection for whistleblowers, preferring instead to rely on a positive reporting duty and conscionable actions by citizens.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In this context, Saudi Arabia’s more proactive approach appears as an outlier. Article 17 of the Anti-Bribery Law provides for rewards for information substantiating an offence. Any person who is not a briber, or an accomplice, and who provides incriminating information substantiating any offence set out in Anti-Bribery Law, shall receive a reward not less than five thousand riyals (about USD 1,350) and not more than half of the money confiscated. There may be scope for a higher reward to be approved in appropriate circumstances.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition, King Salman’s recent order in May 2018 to provide whistle blower protection is progressive in its outlook and signifies Saudi Arabia’s willingness to accede to international standards of rights and transparency when it comes to prosecuting corruption crimes. If Saudi Arabia is mindful of the risks posed by the potential for spurious claims and introduces adequate measures to prevent abuse of the reporting system, whistle blower protection is yet a further measure that will likely serve to reinforce the culture of zero tolerance that Saudi Arabia is attempting to cultivate.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Impending Amendments to the Anti-Bribery Law</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 2 July 2018, Saudi Arabia’s Shoura (Consultative) Council approved draft amendments to the Anti-Bribery Law. The changes, which are yet to be implemented, are reportedly aimed at providing enhanced protection to public utilities through sound prosecution procedures and severe punishment for offences, as well as further enshrining the principles and commitments contained in the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). At present, the extent and exact nature of the amendments are unknown, but once officially passed into law, they have the potential to radically modernise Saudi Arabia’s anti-bribery legislation. This critical development warrants close attention over the coming months as the process to implementation progresses, and could assist investors in assessing the long-term outlook for Saudi Arabia’s economic integrity.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A Weather Eye on the Horizon: Is Further Change an Inevitability?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Anti-corruption measures are an ancillary part of the legal reform process in KSA, but do not represent the totality of the country’s ongoing transition. New money-laundering laws passed in October 2017 are emblematic of the Kingdom’s resolve to eradicate illicit practices from its system. Corruption is symptomatic of countries where there is weak rule of law, but Saudi Arabia’s legal fortifications will go a long way to stamping out the nexus of criminal behaviour that facilitates and drives corruption trends. These are important contributory factors that should be considered by foreign investors when making an assessment of Saudi Arabia’s economic security.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The changes that have already been implemented will only improve the prognosis of anti-corruption in Saudi Arabia. The continued momentum garnered from these initiatives will drive awareness of corruption problems, aided by the combined activity of Nazaha and the newly formed Supreme Committee for Anti-Corruption.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This is a pivotal time for Saudi Arabia and the long-term outlook is positive – there is already evidence of widespread reform to protect the Kingdom’s economic stability and integrity and address systemic weaknesses. Simultaneously, the changes that have been gradually introduced by Saudi Arabia’s General Investment Authority (SAGIA) since 2015 to liberalise the national economy and provide space for full foreign ownership in key sectors, are creating new incentive for foreign investors to tap into the largest market in the Middle East.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Equally, investors must strike the appropriate balance between caution and enthusiasm when encountering new opportunities in the market. Corruption challenges are persistent and pervasive and will require sustained redress for the foreseeable future. Though it is yet undetermined what new mechanisms and measures may be deployed in the Kingdom in future, it is likely that subsequent steps taken to quash illicit practices will have considerable consequences for domestic and foreign investors alike. This will require that foreign investors understand the legal framework and secure their interests against inevitable shifts in the Saudi market as reform measures revolutionise the domestic business culture.</p>\r\nOverall, however, Saudi Arabia’s recent multifaceted approach to reform has created the perfect storm for investors and, with an impending multitude of investment projects, businesses have a prime opportunity to invest at the leading edge of FDI, assured that corrupt practices are not operating with impunity.'),
(260271, 25255, 'MetaValueOld', '<img class=\"size-full wp-image-8012 aligncenter\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/DG.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1536\" height=\"417\" />\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nSaudi Arabia is undergoing significant reform but, beyond the maelstrom of political speculation and conjecture, what are the practical and legal implications of the anti-corruption drive for investors?\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Saudi Arabia has seen tumultuous reform in the last 12 months as Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has sought to propel Saudi Arabia towards Vision 2030. International attention has been riveted to the government’s surging anti-corruption drive since a number of high-profile individuals were detained on corruption charges towards the end of 2017. Much of this attention, however, has been tangential, without providing clear insight into what impact such radical measures will have on the country’s legal framework and business climate.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A Favourable Forecast? The Business Outlook on Anti-Corruption</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The extent and boldness of the recent measures taken in Saudi Arabia are indicative of the government’s resolve to eliminate corruption in the system. The Kingdom has been signatory to the United National Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) since 2004, though it only ratified the agreement in 2013. The events that have garnered so much international attention are only the latest in a long-term initiative to address corrupt practices in the business sector. Between 2012 and 2017, Saudi Arabia has improved its score on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) from 44 to 49. Whilst this score still reflects significant room for improvement, it also charts measurable progress in a region that continues to face drastic change, and provides impetus for the more recent measures that clearly demonstrate the elevated priority of anti-corruption reform.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In order for the Kingdom to benefit from its drive for sustainability and prosperity, however, its determination to eradicate corruption must be symbiotic with its ability to assure investor confidence. The zero-tolerance approach that has surfaced over the past year has the potential to greatly improve the integrity of Saudi Arabia’s business market, but lingering concerns surround residual corruption with certain businesses continuing to question the feasibility and longevity of trading in the Kingdom.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTD) World Investment Report 2018 suggests that, in the short term at least, the anti-corruption drive has done little to improve investor confidence and may even have exacerbated feelings of uncertainty. Inward Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) flows have fallen by more than 80% between 2016 and 2017. Whilst this trend cannot be entirely attributed to the anti-corruption sweep that happened late in the final quarter of the year, it is certainly likely to have been a contributory factor in unsettling investor confidence. From a long-term perspective, however, efforts to level the playing field in Saudi Arabia may bring fairer weather to businesses as the obstacles associated with pervasive corruption are gradually eliminated from the system.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Saudi Arabia is far from being alone in its fight against corruption; it is one of the most prevalent and pressing issues facing systems across the globe, and countries with endemic corruption problems face an almost insurmountable challenge to attract foreign investment. At this nascent stage, it would be premature to speculate as to how other Middle Eastern countries will respond to the Kingdom’s efforts, but the most desirable outcome would be for neighbouring countries to become emboldened in their own anti-corruption efforts. The UAE already stands as the regional outlier in anti-corruption efforts, with a CPI 2017 ranking of 21st in the world, comparable to many leading international jurisdictions. The combined efforts of both Saudi Arabia and the UAE could be instrumental in forging a clear path to greater transparency for other afflicted countries in the Middle East.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Staying Dry: Legal Safeguards Against Corruption In The Kingdom</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The primary anti-corruption provisions are provided by the anti-bribery law issued by Royal Decree No. M/36 of 29-Dhu al-Hijjah-1412 (corresponding to 30 June 1996) (the \"Anti-Bribery Law\"). More recently, a decree was issued setting out rules relating to gifts for public officials (Decree No. 60 dated 18 Safar 1437H (corresponding to 1 December 2015) (the \"Rules on Gifts to Officials\" or the \"Rules\").</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Bribery of Public Officials</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Anti-Bribery Law is primarily focused on public servants. In order to maintain maximum protection for its public sector, the definition is intentionally broad, extending to personnel of joint stock companies, along with their board members and directors. It may also capture private sector individuals who are working on government-related projects, such as consultants to government projects, including temporary employees, experts appointed by the government or judiciary, or even employees of private companies contracted to provide public services. Employees of joint stock companies are also subject to the Anti-Bribery Law, as well as employees of companies and sole proprietorships engaged in banking services.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Anti-Bribery Law broadly defines a bribee as any public servant who solicits, accepts or receives for himself or for others, a gift or payment of any sort, or a promise thereof, as consideration for any act that impinges on the integrity of office. Defences against such practices are fortified by the absence of any exemption, caveat or even significant qualifying criteria for the type of act that could invoke bribery provisions. Any act can be considered corrupt, regardless of its legitimacy, whether it is a positive act or an omission, whether it has been done in the absence of a prior agreement, and even where it involves using the influence attached to a public office to gain benefit, rather than the performance of a relevant duty.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Given the traditionally prominent role of the government in the national economy, the Anti-Bribery Law does provide relatively wide protection, despite the obvious lack of corresponding safeguards applicable to the private sector. Privatisation targets encapsulated by Vision 2030, however, necessitate more complete protection and new measures that target both the public and private sector are a requirement going forward.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Penalties and Enforcement</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under the Anti-Bribery Law, penalties for the offences set out above can reach maximum penalties of imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and/or a fine not exceeding one million riyals (about USD 275,000).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Along with the specific penalties applicable to public servants who accept a bribe, it should be noted that the Anti-Bribery Law provides for the person offering the bribe (whether it is accepted or not), and any accomplice, to be susceptible to corresponding punishments.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">To protect a culture of respect for public officials, conviction on bribery offences also leads to dismissal and a bar from public office for a minimum of five years. In an attempt to prevent perpetrators from benefitting from the proceeds of crime, the Anti Bribery Law provides that any money, benefit or privilege derived from committal of the offence be confiscated wherever possible.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Gifts and Hospitality</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">No exemptions are provided for gifts and hospitality in the Anti-Bribery Law. Any benefit or privilege obtained by the bribee, regardless of its type or designation, whether material or otherwise, shall be considered a (prohibited) gift or promise. This has led to confusion in the past, as conventional business practices that would be widely accepted in other systems appeared to invoke the strict anti-bribery restrictions.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This matter was somewhat elucidated with the passing of the Rules on Gifts to Officials. Pursuant to these Rules, an official may accept gifts, given at visits and official occasions or at receptions of official guests, in accordance with custom and the courtesy protocols of such visits and occasions, though they cannot be cash and must be conventional in the context in which it is given. Crucially, businesses must be cognisant that generally, when reviewing the appositeness of a gift, the authorities will consider a number of contextual factors, including the proximity of the gift-giving to any relevant business deal, common courtesy practices of the firm in question, proportionality of the gift to conventional customs, and the appropriateness of the benefit given.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Though further provisions on the permissibility of certain types of gifts are outlined in the Rules, gifts and hospitality continue to be point of concern for business and can prove problematic in a culture where generosity is an ever-present feature of relations.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Exposure for Corporate Entities</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Significantly, where the manager or any employee of a private company is convicted of any offence under the Anti-Bribery Law, and the offence was committed for the benefit of such company, the law provides for a fine not exceeding ten times the value of the bribe and/or a ban from entering into public procurement or project contracts of at least 5 years. The briber can be exempted from punishment if he informs the authorities prior to the discovery of the offence, and this may provide some means by which corporate entities can limit their exposure upon becoming aware of any apparent offences under the Anti-Bribery Law.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Preparing for the Tempest: Bolstering Defences Ahead Of Reform</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">From a strategic perspective, since bribery is rarely an isolated issue, responses need to be thorough and comprehensive; part of an overarching coordinated national strategy that provides protection across an entire economic system and all branches of government. In order to ensure that such strategies are effective and aligned across institutions and businesses, they require constant monitoring and enforcement by a dedicated and independent authority, Where these institutions also act as the recipient in a sound and efficient reporting mechanism, the presence of a clear and trustworthy process increases the confidence of international investors.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Aside from the well-publicised arrests, Saudi Arabia’s corruption reform has extended to measures in other parts of its anti-corruption framework that have more sustainable implications for how it will address corrupt practices in future. These bold new mechanisms also enhance the country’s invigorated anti-corruption culture, which marks an abrupt departure from its previous presumed reticence on corruption matters.</p>\r\n</br><p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"alignright wp-image-8011\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/676.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"528\" height=\"213\" /></br>Newly-formed Supreme Committee for Anti-Corruption</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The formation of the Supreme Committee is indicative of the greater strategic importance of anti-graft efforts to the country’s wider reform programme. Chaired by the Crown Prince and comprised of high-ranking officials from various sectors of governance, including security, finance and existing anti-corruption bodies, the Committee acts as a mechanism that will immediately elevate corruption instances to the remit of the highest echelons of government. In so doing, the Kingdom is sending a strong message that it will no longer turn a blind eye to practices that compromise its financial system or rule of law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The new Supreme Committee will have vastly advanced investigative and prosecutorial powers, including the capacity to issue arrest warrants and order interim measures such as issuing travel bans and asset freezing orders. This is a critical limitation of the existing National Anti-Corruption Commission, more commonly known as Nazaha, which was established in 2012 and has limited capacity, despite its function as the primary recipient of reports of corrupt activity. The new committee will not replace Nazaha, which will continue to target the protection of national integrity, investigate instances of graft in government contracts and refer any incidents to the relevant authorities and public prosecution as and when necessary.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">By coordinating the activities of both the Supreme Committee and Nazaha, the efficacy of existing measures will be boosted by covering a wider scope of prosecutorial powers, increased authority with which to pursue perpetrators, and greater scrutiny through public awareness.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Specialised Anti-corruption Units Within the Public Prosecution Department</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">As an additional measure, the Saudi government announced as recently as March 2018 that it had established new specialised anti-corruption units within the Public Prosecution. Cases prosecuted by these units would be carried out under the direct oversight of the Attorney General, once again demonstrating the paramount importance of corruption-related cases. Though it is unclear when the dedicated units will become operational, in creating this new advanced capacity the Saudi government has improved its ability to investigate and prosecute corrupt activity and, in so doing, will add an extra deterrent against illicit practices.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Whistleblower Culture</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Whistleblower protection is a significant point of departure in many regimes across the globe. Whilst some Western systems, such as the US, actively promote whistleblowing activity through substantial financial incentives, most countries in the Middle East have thus far been slow to introduce formal protection for whistleblowers, preferring instead to rely on a positive reporting duty and conscionable actions by citizens.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In this context, Saudi Arabia’s more proactive approach appears as an outlier. Article 17 of the Anti-Bribery Law provides for rewards for information substantiating an offence. Any person who is not a briber, or an accomplice, and who provides incriminating information substantiating any offence set out in Anti-Bribery Law, shall receive a reward not less than five thousand riyals (about USD 1,350) and not more than half of the money confiscated. There may be scope for a higher reward to be approved in appropriate circumstances.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition, King Salman’s recent order in May 2018 to provide whistle blower protection is progressive in its outlook and signifies Saudi Arabia’s willingness to accede to international standards of rights and transparency when it comes to prosecuting corruption crimes. If Saudi Arabia is mindful of the risks posed by the potential for spurious claims and introduces adequate measures to prevent abuse of the reporting system, whistle blower protection is yet a further measure that will likely serve to reinforce the culture of zero tolerance that Saudi Arabia is attempting to cultivate.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Impending Amendments to the Anti-Bribery Law</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 2 July 2018, Saudi Arabia’s Shoura (Consultative) Council approved draft amendments to the Anti-Bribery Law. The changes, which are yet to be implemented, are reportedly aimed at providing enhanced protection to public utilities through sound prosecution procedures and severe punishment for offences, as well as further enshrining the principles and commitments contained in the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). At present, the extent and exact nature of the amendments are unknown, but once officially passed into law, they have the potential to radically modernise Saudi Arabia’s anti-bribery legislation. This critical development warrants close attention over the coming months as the process to implementation progresses, and could assist investors in assessing the long-term outlook for Saudi Arabia’s economic integrity.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A Weather Eye on the Horizon: Is Further Change an Inevitability?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Anti-corruption measures are an ancillary part of the legal reform process in KSA, but do not represent the totality of the country’s ongoing transition. New money-laundering laws passed in October 2017 are emblematic of the Kingdom’s resolve to eradicate illicit practices from its system. Corruption is symptomatic of countries where there is weak rule of law, but Saudi Arabia’s legal fortifications will go a long way to stamping out the nexus of criminal behaviour that facilitates and drives corruption trends. These are important contributory factors that should be considered by foreign investors when making an assessment of Saudi Arabia’s economic security.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The changes that have already been implemented will only improve the prognosis of anti-corruption in Saudi Arabia. The continued momentum garnered from these initiatives will drive awareness of corruption problems, aided by the combined activity of Nazaha and the newly formed Supreme Committee for Anti-Corruption.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This is a pivotal time for Saudi Arabia and the long-term outlook is positive – there is already evidence of widespread reform to protect the Kingdom’s economic stability and integrity and address systemic weaknesses. Simultaneously, the changes that have been gradually introduced by Saudi Arabia’s General Investment Authority (SAGIA) since 2015 to liberalise the national economy and provide space for full foreign ownership in key sectors, are creating new incentive for foreign investors to tap into the largest market in the Middle East.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Equally, investors must strike the appropriate balance between caution and enthusiasm when encountering new opportunities in the market. Corruption challenges are persistent and pervasive and will require sustained redress for the foreseeable future. Though it is yet undetermined what new mechanisms and measures may be deployed in the Kingdom in future, it is likely that subsequent steps taken to quash illicit practices will have considerable consequences for domestic and foreign investors alike. This will require that foreign investors understand the legal framework and secure their interests against inevitable shifts in the Saudi market as reform measures revolutionise the domestic business culture.</p>\r\nOverall, however, Saudi Arabia’s recent multifaceted approach to reform has created the perfect storm for investors and, with an impending multitude of investment projects, businesses have a prime opportunity to invest at the leading edge of FDI, assured that corrupt practices are not operating with impunity.'),
(260272, 25255, 'MetaLink', 'content'),
(260273, 25255, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7939&amp;action=edit');
INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`) VALUES
(260274, 25255, 'ReportText', '<img class=\"size-full wp-image-8012 aligncenter\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/DG.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1536\" height=\"417\" />\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nSaudi Arabia is undergoing significant reform but, beyond the maelstrom of political speculation and conjecture, what are the practical and legal implications of the anti-corruption drive for investors?\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Saudi Arabia has seen tumultuous reform in the last 12 months as Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has sought to propel Saudi Arabia towards Vision 2030. International attention has been riveted to the government’s surging anti-corruption drive since a number of high-profile individuals were detained on corruption charges towards the end of 2017. Much of this attention, however, has been tangential, without providing clear insight into what impact such radical measures will have on the country’s legal framework and business climate.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A Favourable Forecast? The Business Outlook on Anti-Corruption</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The extent and boldness of the recent measures taken in Saudi Arabia are indicative of the government’s resolve to eliminate corruption in the system. The Kingdom has been signatory to the United National Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) since 2004, though it only ratified the agreement in 2013. The events that have garnered so much international attention are only the latest in a long-term initiative to address corrupt practices in the business sector. Between 2012 and 2017, Saudi Arabia has improved its score on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) from 44 to 49. Whilst this score still reflects significant room for improvement, it also charts measurable progress in a region that continues to face drastic change, and provides impetus for the more recent measures that clearly demonstrate the elevated priority of anti-corruption reform.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In order for the Kingdom to benefit from its drive for sustainability and prosperity, however, its determination to eradicate corruption must be symbiotic with its ability to assure investor confidence. The zero-tolerance approach that has surfaced over the past year has the potential to greatly improve the integrity of Saudi Arabia’s business market, but lingering concerns surround residual corruption with certain businesses continuing to question the feasibility and longevity of trading in the Kingdom.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTD) World Investment Report 2018 suggests that, in the short term at least, the anti-corruption drive has done little to improve investor confidence and may even have exacerbated feelings of uncertainty. Inward Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) flows have fallen by more than 80% between 2016 and 2017. Whilst this trend cannot be entirely attributed to the anti-corruption sweep that happened late in the final quarter of the year, it is certainly likely to have been a contributory factor in unsettling investor confidence. From a long-term perspective, however, efforts to level the playing field in Saudi Arabia may bring fairer weather to businesses as the obstacles associated with pervasive corruption are gradually eliminated from the system.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Saudi Arabia is far from being alone in its fight against corruption; it is one of the most prevalent and pressing issues facing systems across the globe, and countries with endemic corruption problems face an almost insurmountable challenge to attract foreign investment. At this nascent stage, it would be premature to speculate as to how other Middle Eastern countries will respond to the Kingdom’s efforts, but the most desirable outcome would be for neighbouring countries to become emboldened in their own anti-corruption efforts. The UAE already stands as the regional outlier in anti-corruption efforts, with a CPI 2017 ranking of 21st in the world, comparable to many leading international jurisdictions. The combined efforts of both Saudi Arabia and the UAE could be instrumental in forging a clear path to greater transparency for other afflicted countries in the Middle East.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Staying Dry: Legal Safeguards Against Corruption In The Kingdom</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The primary anti-corruption provisions are provided by the anti-bribery law issued by Royal Decree No. M/36 of 29-Dhu al-Hijjah-1412 (corresponding to 30 June 1996) (the \"Anti-Bribery Law\"). More recently, a decree was issued setting out rules relating to gifts for public officials (Decree No. 60 dated 18 Safar 1437H (corresponding to 1 December 2015) (the \"Rules on Gifts to Officials\" or the \"Rules\").</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Bribery of Public Officials</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Anti-Bribery Law is primarily focused on public servants. In order to maintain maximum protection for its public sector, the definition is intentionally broad, extending to personnel of joint stock companies, along with their board members and directors. It may also capture private sector individuals who are working on government-related projects, such as consultants to government projects, including temporary employees, experts appointed by the government or judiciary, or even employees of private companies contracted to provide public services. Employees of joint stock companies are also subject to the Anti-Bribery Law, as well as employees of companies and sole proprietorships engaged in banking services.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Anti-Bribery Law broadly defines a bribee as any public servant who solicits, accepts or receives for himself or for others, a gift or payment of any sort, or a promise thereof, as consideration for any act that impinges on the integrity of office. Defences against such practices are fortified by the absence of any exemption, caveat or even significant qualifying criteria for the type of act that could invoke bribery provisions. Any act can be considered corrupt, regardless of its legitimacy, whether it is a positive act or an omission, whether it has been done in the absence of a prior agreement, and even where it involves using the influence attached to a public office to gain benefit, rather than the performance of a relevant duty.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Given the traditionally prominent role of the government in the national economy, the Anti-Bribery Law does provide relatively wide protection, despite the obvious lack of corresponding safeguards applicable to the private sector. Privatisation targets encapsulated by Vision 2030, however, necessitate more complete protection and new measures that target both the public and private sector are a requirement going forward.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Penalties and Enforcement</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under the Anti-Bribery Law, penalties for the offences set out above can reach maximum penalties of imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and/or a fine not exceeding one million riyals (about USD 275,000).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Along with the specific penalties applicable to public servants who accept a bribe, it should be noted that the Anti-Bribery Law provides for the person offering the bribe (whether it is accepted or not), and any accomplice, to be susceptible to corresponding punishments.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">To protect a culture of respect for public officials, conviction on bribery offences also leads to dismissal and a bar from public office for a minimum of five years. In an attempt to prevent perpetrators from benefitting from the proceeds of crime, the Anti Bribery Law provides that any money, benefit or privilege derived from committal of the offence be confiscated wherever possible.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Gifts and Hospitality</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">No exemptions are provided for gifts and hospitality in the Anti-Bribery Law. Any benefit or privilege obtained by the bribee, regardless of its type or designation, whether material or otherwise, shall be considered a (prohibited) gift or promise. This has led to confusion in the past, as conventional business practices that would be widely accepted in other systems appeared to invoke the strict anti-bribery restrictions.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This matter was somewhat elucidated with the passing of the Rules on Gifts to Officials. Pursuant to these Rules, an official may accept gifts, given at visits and official occasions or at receptions of official guests, in accordance with custom and the courtesy protocols of such visits and occasions, though they cannot be cash and must be conventional in the context in which it is given. Crucially, businesses must be cognisant that generally, when reviewing the appositeness of a gift, the authorities will consider a number of contextual factors, including the proximity of the gift-giving to any relevant business deal, common courtesy practices of the firm in question, proportionality of the gift to conventional customs, and the appropriateness of the benefit given.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Though further provisions on the permissibility of certain types of gifts are outlined in the Rules, gifts and hospitality continue to be point of concern for business and can prove problematic in a culture where generosity is an ever-present feature of relations.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Exposure for Corporate Entities</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Significantly, where the manager or any employee of a private company is convicted of any offence under the Anti-Bribery Law, and the offence was committed for the benefit of such company, the law provides for a fine not exceeding ten times the value of the bribe and/or a ban from entering into public procurement or project contracts of at least 5 years. The briber can be exempted from punishment if he informs the authorities prior to the discovery of the offence, and this may provide some means by which corporate entities can limit their exposure upon becoming aware of any apparent offences under the Anti-Bribery Law.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Preparing for the Tempest: Bolstering Defences Ahead Of Reform</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">From a strategic perspective, since bribery is rarely an isolated issue, responses need to be thorough and comprehensive; part of an overarching coordinated national strategy that provides protection across an entire economic system and all branches of government. In order to ensure that such strategies are effective and aligned across institutions and businesses, they require constant monitoring and enforcement by a dedicated and independent authority, Where these institutions also act as the recipient in a sound and efficient reporting mechanism, the presence of a clear and trustworthy process increases the confidence of international investors.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Aside from the well-publicised arrests, Saudi Arabia’s corruption reform has extended to measures in other parts of its anti-corruption framework that have more sustainable implications for how it will address corrupt practices in future. These bold new mechanisms also enhance the country’s invigorated anti-corruption culture, which marks an abrupt departure from its previous presumed reticence on corruption matters.</p>\r\n</br><p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"alignright wp-image-8011\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/676.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"528\" height=\"213\" /></br>Newly-formed Supreme Committee for Anti-Corruption</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The formation of the Supreme Committee is indicative of the greater strategic importance of anti-graft efforts to the country’s wider reform programme. Chaired by the Crown Prince and comprised of high-ranking officials from various sectors of governance, including security, finance and existing anti-corruption bodies, the Committee acts as a mechanism that will immediately elevate corruption instances to the remit of the highest echelons of government. In so doing, the Kingdom is sending a strong message that it will no longer turn a blind eye to practices that compromise its financial system or rule of law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The new Supreme Committee will have vastly advanced investigative and prosecutorial powers, including the capacity to issue arrest warrants and order interim measures such as issuing travel bans and asset freezing orders. This is a critical limitation of the existing National Anti-Corruption Commission, more commonly known as Nazaha, which was established in 2012 and has limited capacity, despite its function as the primary recipient of reports of corrupt activity. The new committee will not replace Nazaha, which will continue to target the protection of national integrity, investigate instances of graft in government contracts and refer any incidents to the relevant authorities and public prosecution as and when necessary.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">By coordinating the activities of both the Supreme Committee and Nazaha, the efficacy of existing measures will be boosted by covering a wider scope of prosecutorial powers, increased authority with which to pursue perpetrators, and greater scrutiny through public awareness.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Specialised Anti-corruption Units Within the Public Prosecution Department</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">As an additional measure, the Saudi government announced as recently as March 2018 that it had established new specialised anti-corruption units within the Public Prosecution. Cases prosecuted by these units would be carried out under the direct oversight of the Attorney General, once again demonstrating the paramount importance of corruption-related cases. Though it is unclear when the dedicated units will become operational, in creating this new advanced capacity the Saudi government has improved its ability to investigate and prosecute corrupt activity and, in so doing, will add an extra deterrent against illicit practices.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Whistleblower Culture</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Whistleblower protection is a significant point of departure in many regimes across the globe. Whilst some Western systems, such as the US, actively promote whistleblowing activity through substantial financial incentives, most countries in the Middle East have thus far been slow to introduce formal protection for whistleblowers, preferring instead to rely on a positive reporting duty and conscionable actions by citizens.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In this context, Saudi Arabia’s more proactive approach appears as an outlier. Article 17 of the Anti-Bribery Law provides for rewards for information substantiating an offence. Any person who is not a briber, or an accomplice, and who provides incriminating information substantiating any offence set out in Anti-Bribery Law, shall receive a reward not less than five thousand riyals (about USD 1,350) and not more than half of the money confiscated. There may be scope for a higher reward to be approved in appropriate circumstances.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition, King Salman’s recent order in May 2018 to provide whistle blower protection is progressive in its outlook and signifies Saudi Arabia’s willingness to accede to international standards of rights and transparency when it comes to prosecuting corruption crimes. If Saudi Arabia is mindful of the risks posed by the potential for spurious claims and introduces adequate measures to prevent abuse of the reporting system, whistle blower protection is yet a further measure that will likely serve to reinforce the culture of zero tolerance that Saudi Arabia is attempting to cultivate.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Impending Amendments to the Anti-Bribery Law</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 2 July 2018, Saudi Arabia’s Shoura (Consultative) Council approved draft amendments to the Anti-Bribery Law. The changes, which are yet to be implemented, are reportedly aimed at providing enhanced protection to public utilities through sound prosecution procedures and severe punishment for offences, as well as further enshrining the principles and commitments contained in the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). At present, the extent and exact nature of the amendments are unknown, but once officially passed into law, they have the potential to radically modernise Saudi Arabia’s anti-bribery legislation. This critical development warrants close attention over the coming months as the process to implementation progresses, and could assist investors in assessing the long-term outlook for Saudi Arabia’s economic integrity.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A Weather Eye on the Horizon: Is Further Change an Inevitability?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Anti-corruption measures are an ancillary part of the legal reform process in KSA, but do not represent the totality of the country’s ongoing transition. New money-laundering laws passed in October 2017 are emblematic of the Kingdom’s resolve to eradicate illicit practices from its system. Corruption is symptomatic of countries where there is weak rule of law, but Saudi Arabia’s legal fortifications will go a long way to stamping out the nexus of criminal behaviour that facilitates and drives corruption trends. These are important contributory factors that should be considered by foreign investors when making an assessment of Saudi Arabia’s economic security.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The changes that have already been implemented will only improve the prognosis of anti-corruption in Saudi Arabia. The continued momentum garnered from these initiatives will drive awareness of corruption problems, aided by the combined activity of Nazaha and the newly formed Supreme Committee for Anti-Corruption.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This is a pivotal time for Saudi Arabia and the long-term outlook is positive – there is already evidence of widespread reform to protect the Kingdom’s economic stability and integrity and address systemic weaknesses. Simultaneously, the changes that have been gradually introduced by Saudi Arabia’s General Investment Authority (SAGIA) since 2015 to liberalise the national economy and provide space for full foreign ownership in key sectors, are creating new incentive for foreign investors to tap into the largest market in the Middle East.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Equally, investors must strike the appropriate balance between caution and enthusiasm when encountering new opportunities in the market. Corruption challenges are persistent and pervasive and will require sustained redress for the foreseeable future. Though it is yet undetermined what new mechanisms and measures may be deployed in the Kingdom in future, it is likely that subsequent steps taken to quash illicit practices will have considerable consequences for domestic and foreign investors alike. This will require that foreign investors understand the legal framework and secure their interests against inevitable shifts in the Saudi market as reform measures revolutionise the domestic business culture.</p>\r\nOverall, however, Saudi Arabia’s recent multifaceted approach to reform has created the perfect storm for investors and, with an impending multitude of investment projects, businesses have a prime opportunity to invest at the leading edge of FDI, assured that corrupt practices are not operating with impunity.|<img class=\"size-full wp-image-8012 aligncenter\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/DG.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1536\" height=\"417\" />\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nSaudi Arabia is undergoing significant reform but, beyond the maelstrom of political speculation and conjecture, what are the practical and legal implications of the anti-corruption drive for investors?\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Saudi Arabia has seen tumultuous reform in the last 12 months as Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has sought to propel Saudi Arabia towards Vision 2030. International attention has been riveted to the government’s surging anti-corruption drive since a number of high-profile individuals were detained on corruption charges towards the end of 2017. Much of this attention, however, has been tangential, without providing clear insight into what impact such radical measures will have on the country’s legal framework and business climate.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A Favourable Forecast? The Business Outlook on Anti-Corruption</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The extent and boldness of the recent measures taken in Saudi Arabia are indicative of the government’s resolve to eliminate corruption in the system. The Kingdom has been signatory to the United National Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) since 2004, though it only ratified the agreement in 2013. The events that have garnered so much international attention are only the latest in a long-term initiative to address corrupt practices in the business sector. Between 2012 and 2017, Saudi Arabia has improved its score on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) from 44 to 49. Whilst this score still reflects significant room for improvement, it also charts measurable progress in a region that continues to face drastic change, and provides impetus for the more recent measures that clearly demonstrate the elevated priority of anti-corruption reform.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In order for the Kingdom to benefit from its drive for sustainability and prosperity, however, its determination to eradicate corruption must be symbiotic with its ability to assure investor confidence. The zero-tolerance approach that has surfaced over the past year has the potential to greatly improve the integrity of Saudi Arabia’s business market, but lingering concerns surround residual corruption with certain businesses continuing to question the feasibility and longevity of trading in the Kingdom.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTD) World Investment Report 2018 suggests that, in the short term at least, the anti-corruption drive has done little to improve investor confidence and may even have exacerbated feelings of uncertainty. Inward Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) flows have fallen by more than 80% between 2016 and 2017. Whilst this trend cannot be entirely attributed to the anti-corruption sweep that happened late in the final quarter of the year, it is certainly likely to have been a contributory factor in unsettling investor confidence. From a long-term perspective, however, efforts to level the playing field in Saudi Arabia may bring fairer weather to businesses as the obstacles associated with pervasive corruption are gradually eliminated from the system.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Saudi Arabia is far from being alone in its fight against corruption; it is one of the most prevalent and pressing issues facing systems across the globe, and countries with endemic corruption problems face an almost insurmountable challenge to attract foreign investment. At this nascent stage, it would be premature to speculate as to how other Middle Eastern countries will respond to the Kingdom’s efforts, but the most desirable outcome would be for neighbouring countries to become emboldened in their own anti-corruption efforts. The UAE already stands as the regional outlier in anti-corruption efforts, with a CPI 2017 ranking of 21st in the world, comparable to many leading international jurisdictions. The combined efforts of both Saudi Arabia and the UAE could be instrumental in forging a clear path to greater transparency for other afflicted countries in the Middle East.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Staying Dry: Legal Safeguards Against Corruption In The Kingdom</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The primary anti-corruption provisions are provided by the anti-bribery law issued by Royal Decree No. M/36 of 29-Dhu al-Hijjah-1412 (corresponding to 30 June 1996) (the \"Anti-Bribery Law\"). More recently, a decree was issued setting out rules relating to gifts for public officials (Decree No. 60 dated 18 Safar 1437H (corresponding to 1 December 2015) (the \"Rules on Gifts to Officials\" or the \"Rules\").</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Bribery of Public Officials</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Anti-Bribery Law is primarily focused on public servants. In order to maintain maximum protection for its public sector, the definition is intentionally broad, extending to personnel of joint stock companies, along with their board members and directors. It may also capture private sector individuals who are working on government-related projects, such as consultants to government projects, including temporary employees, experts appointed by the government or judiciary, or even employees of private companies contracted to provide public services. Employees of joint stock companies are also subject to the Anti-Bribery Law, as well as employees of companies and sole proprietorships engaged in banking services.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Anti-Bribery Law broadly defines a bribee as any public servant who solicits, accepts or receives for himself or for others, a gift or payment of any sort, or a promise thereof, as consideration for any act that impinges on the integrity of office. Defences against such practices are fortified by the absence of any exemption, caveat or even significant qualifying criteria for the type of act that could invoke bribery provisions. Any act can be considered corrupt, regardless of its legitimacy, whether it is a positive act or an omission, whether it has been done in the absence of a prior agreement, and even where it involves using the influence attached to a public office to gain benefit, rather than the performance of a relevant duty.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Given the traditionally prominent role of the government in the national economy, the Anti-Bribery Law does provide relatively wide protection, despite the obvious lack of corresponding safeguards applicable to the private sector. Privatisation targets encapsulated by Vision 2030, however, necessitate more complete protection and new measures that target both the public and private sector are a requirement going forward.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Penalties and Enforcement</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under the Anti-Bribery Law, penalties for the offences set out above can reach maximum penalties of imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and/or a fine not exceeding one million riyals (about USD 275,000).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Along with the specific penalties applicable to public servants who accept a bribe, it should be noted that the Anti-Bribery Law provides for the person offering the bribe (whether it is accepted or not), and any accomplice, to be susceptible to corresponding punishments.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">To protect a culture of respect for public officials, conviction on bribery offences also leads to dismissal and a bar from public office for a minimum of five years. In an attempt to prevent perpetrators from benefitting from the proceeds of crime, the Anti Bribery Law provides that any money, benefit or privilege derived from committal of the offence be confiscated wherever possible.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Gifts and Hospitality</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">No exemptions are provided for gifts and hospitality in the Anti-Bribery Law. Any benefit or privilege obtained by the bribee, regardless of its type or designation, whether material or otherwise, shall be considered a (prohibited) gift or promise. This has led to confusion in the past, as conventional business practices that would be widely accepted in other systems appeared to invoke the strict anti-bribery restrictions.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This matter was somewhat elucidated with the passing of the Rules on Gifts to Officials. Pursuant to these Rules, an official may accept gifts, given at visits and official occasions or at receptions of official guests, in accordance with custom and the courtesy protocols of such visits and occasions, though they cannot be cash and must be conventional in the context in which it is given. Crucially, businesses must be cognisant that generally, when reviewing the appositeness of a gift, the authorities will consider a number of contextual factors, including the proximity of the gift-giving to any relevant business deal, common courtesy practices of the firm in question, proportionality of the gift to conventional customs, and the appropriateness of the benefit given.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Though further provisions on the permissibility of certain types of gifts are outlined in the Rules, gifts and hospitality continue to be point of concern for business and can prove problematic in a culture where generosity is an ever-present feature of relations.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Exposure for Corporate Entities</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Significantly, where the manager or any employee of a private company is convicted of any offence under the Anti-Bribery Law, and the offence was committed for the benefit of such company, the law provides for a fine not exceeding ten times the value of the bribe and/or a ban from entering into public procurement or project contracts of at least 5 years. The briber can be exempted from punishment if he informs the authorities prior to the discovery of the offence, and this may provide some means by which corporate entities can limit their exposure upon becoming aware of any apparent offences under the Anti-Bribery Law.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Preparing for the Tempest: Bolstering Defences Ahead Of Reform</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">From a strategic perspective, since bribery is rarely an isolated issue, responses need to be thorough and comprehensive; part of an overarching coordinated national strategy that provides protection across an entire economic system and all branches of government. In order to ensure that such strategies are effective and aligned across institutions and businesses, they require constant monitoring and enforcement by a dedicated and independent authority, Where these institutions also act as the recipient in a sound and efficient reporting mechanism, the presence of a clear and trustworthy process increases the confidence of international investors.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Aside from the well-publicised arrests, Saudi Arabia’s corruption reform has extended to measures in other parts of its anti-corruption framework that have more sustainable implications for how it will address corrupt practices in future. These bold new mechanisms also enhance the country’s invigorated anti-corruption culture, which marks an abrupt departure from its previous presumed reticence on corruption matters.</p>\r\n</br><p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"alignright wp-image-8011\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/676.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"528\" height=\"213\" />Newly-formed Supreme Committee for Anti-Corruption</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The formation of the Supreme Committee is indicative of the greater strategic importance of anti-graft efforts to the country’s wider reform programme. Chaired by the Crown Prince and comprised of high-ranking officials from various sectors of governance, including security, finance and existing anti-corruption bodies, the Committee acts as a mechanism that will immediately elevate corruption instances to the remit of the highest echelons of government. In so doing, the Kingdom is sending a strong message that it will no longer turn a blind eye to practices that compromise its financial system or rule of law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The new Supreme Committee will have vastly advanced investigative and prosecutorial powers, including the capacity to issue arrest warrants and order interim measures such as issuing travel bans and asset freezing orders. This is a critical limitation of the existing National Anti-Corruption Commission, more commonly known as Nazaha, which was established in 2012 and has limited capacity, despite its function as the primary recipient of reports of corrupt activity. The new committee will not replace Nazaha, which will continue to target the protection of national integrity, investigate instances of graft in government contracts and refer any incidents to the relevant authorities and public prosecution as and when necessary.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">By coordinating the activities of both the Supreme Committee and Nazaha, the efficacy of existing measures will be boosted by covering a wider scope of prosecutorial powers, increased authority with which to pursue perpetrators, and greater scrutiny through public awareness.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Specialised Anti-corruption Units Within the Public Prosecution Department</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">As an additional measure, the Saudi government announced as recently as March 2018 that it had established new specialised anti-corruption units within the Public Prosecution. Cases prosecuted by these units would be carried out under the direct oversight of the Attorney General, once again demonstrating the paramount importance of corruption-related cases. Though it is unclear when the dedicated units will become operational, in creating this new advanced capacity the Saudi government has improved its ability to investigate and prosecute corrupt activity and, in so doing, will add an extra deterrent against illicit practices.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Whistleblower Culture</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Whistleblower protection is a significant point of departure in many regimes across the globe. Whilst some Western systems, such as the US, actively promote whistleblowing activity through substantial financial incentives, most countries in the Middle East have thus far been slow to introduce formal protection for whistleblowers, preferring instead to rely on a positive reporting duty and conscionable actions by citizens.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In this context, Saudi Arabia’s more proactive approach appears as an outlier. Article 17 of the Anti-Bribery Law provides for rewards for information substantiating an offence. Any person who is not a briber, or an accomplice, and who provides incriminating information substantiating any offence set out in Anti-Bribery Law, shall receive a reward not less than five thousand riyals (about USD 1,350) and not more than half of the money confiscated. There may be scope for a higher reward to be approved in appropriate circumstances.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition, King Salman’s recent order in May 2018 to provide whistle blower protection is progressive in its outlook and signifies Saudi Arabia’s willingness to accede to international standards of rights and transparency when it comes to prosecuting corruption crimes. If Saudi Arabia is mindful of the risks posed by the potential for spurious claims and introduces adequate measures to prevent abuse of the reporting system, whistle blower protection is yet a further measure that will likely serve to reinforce the culture of zero tolerance that Saudi Arabia is attempting to cultivate.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Impending Amendments to the Anti-Bribery Law</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 2 July 2018, Saudi Arabia’s Shoura (Consultative) Council approved draft amendments to the Anti-Bribery Law. The changes, which are yet to be implemented, are reportedly aimed at providing enhanced protection to public utilities through sound prosecution procedures and severe punishment for offences, as well as further enshrining the principles and commitments contained in the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). At present, the extent and exact nature of the amendments are unknown, but once officially passed into law, they have the potential to radically modernise Saudi Arabia’s anti-bribery legislation. This critical development warrants close attention over the coming months as the process to implementation progresses, and could assist investors in assessing the long-term outlook for Saudi Arabia’s economic integrity.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A Weather Eye on the Horizon: Is Further Change an Inevitability?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Anti-corruption measures are an ancillary part of the legal reform process in KSA, but do not represent the totality of the country’s ongoing transition. New money-laundering laws passed in October 2017 are emblematic of the Kingdom’s resolve to eradicate illicit practices from its system. Corruption is symptomatic of countries where there is weak rule of law, but Saudi Arabia’s legal fortifications will go a long way to stamping out the nexus of criminal behaviour that facilitates and drives corruption trends. These are important contributory factors that should be considered by foreign investors when making an assessment of Saudi Arabia’s economic security.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The changes that have already been implemented will only improve the prognosis of anti-corruption in Saudi Arabia. The continued momentum garnered from these initiatives will drive awareness of corruption problems, aided by the combined activity of Nazaha and the newly formed Supreme Committee for Anti-Corruption.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This is a pivotal time for Saudi Arabia and the long-term outlook is positive – there is already evidence of widespread reform to protect the Kingdom’s economic stability and integrity and address systemic weaknesses. Simultaneously, the changes that have been gradually introduced by Saudi Arabia’s General Investment Authority (SAGIA) since 2015 to liberalise the national economy and provide space for full foreign ownership in key sectors, are creating new incentive for foreign investors to tap into the largest market in the Middle East.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Equally, investors must strike the appropriate balance between caution and enthusiasm when encountering new opportunities in the market. Corruption challenges are persistent and pervasive and will require sustained redress for the foreseeable future. Though it is yet undetermined what new mechanisms and measures may be deployed in the Kingdom in future, it is likely that subsequent steps taken to quash illicit practices will have considerable consequences for domestic and foreign investors alike. This will require that foreign investors understand the legal framework and secure their interests against inevitable shifts in the Saudi market as reform measures revolutionise the domestic business culture.</p>\r\nOverall, however, Saudi Arabia’s recent multifaceted approach to reform has created the perfect storm for investors and, with an impending multitude of investment projects, businesses have a prime opportunity to invest at the leading edge of FDI, assured that corrupt practices are not operating with impunity.'),
(260275, 25255, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(260276, 25255, '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'),
(260277, 25255, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(260278, 25255, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(260279, 25256, 'PostID', '7939'),
(260280, 25256, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(260281, 25256, 'PostTitle', 'The Calm After the Storm: Saudi Arabia’s Anti-Corruption Tornado and the Investor Impact'),
(260282, 25256, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(260283, 25256, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:41:29'),
(260284, 25256, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/the-calm-after-the-storm-saudi-arabias-anti-corruption-tornado-and-the-investor-impact/'),
(260285, 25256, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7939&amp;action=edit'),
(260286, 25256, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(260287, 25256, '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'),
(260288, 25256, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(260289, 25256, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(260290, 25257, 'PostID', '7939'),
(260291, 25257, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(260292, 25257, 'PostTitle', 'The Calm After the Storm: Saudi Arabia’s Anti-Corruption Tornado and the Investor Impact'),
(260293, 25257, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(260294, 25257, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:41:29'),
(260295, 25257, 'PostUrl', 'https://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/the-calm-after-the-storm-saudi-arabias-anti-corruption-tornado-and-the-investor-impact/'),
(260296, 25257, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7939&amp;action=edit'),
(260297, 25257, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(260298, 25257, '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'),
(260299, 25257, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(260300, 25257, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(260301, 25258, 'PostID', '5'),
(260302, 25258, 'PostType', 'page'),
(260303, 25258, 'PostTitle', 'Home'),
(260304, 25258, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(260305, 25258, 'PostDate', '2017-09-06 07:15:00'),
(260306, 25258, 'PostUrl', 'https://www.tamimi.com/'),
(260307, 25258, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=5&amp;action=edit'),
(260308, 25258, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(260309, 25258, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_2) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(260310, 25258, 'CurrentUserID', '1'),
(260311, 25258, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(260312, 25259, 'PostID', '7956'),
(260313, 25259, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(260314, 25259, 'PostTitle', 'From Expo 2020 to Asian Cup 2019: Developing a protocol for dealing with Ambush Marketing in the GCC'),
(260315, 25259, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(260316, 25259, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:34:13'),
(260317, 25259, 'PostUrl', 'https://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/from-expo-2020-to-asian-cup-2019-developing-a-protocol-for-dealing-with-ambush-marketing-in-the-gcc/'),
(260318, 25259, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7956&amp;action=edit'),
(260319, 25259, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(260320, 25259, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_2) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(260321, 25259, 'CurrentUserID', '1'),
(260322, 25259, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(260552, 25280, 'MetaLink', 'content'),
(260553, 25280, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7957&amp;action=edit');
INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`) VALUES
(260554, 25280, 'ReportText', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-8044 alignnone\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/cvdfd.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"6000\" height=\"2401\" /></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Bahrain’s Law on the Protection of Personal Data was published on 19 July 2018, and will come into effect on 1 August 2019. The Law will require a variety of changes to the way businesses process personal data in Bahrain or about residents of Bahrain. Data protection has not been a high priority topic for most businesses in Bahrain, with the limited exception of international entities subject to data protection requirements in other jurisdictions in which they operate. While the publication of the new Law provides a considerable lead-in period within which entities subject to the Law will need to comply, the fact that the Law creates criminal offences means that compliance is all the more important and should be treated as a high priority.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Until now, and with one exception (namely, Qatar), none of the Gulf Cooperation Council member states had a modern, nationally applicable data protection law. Legal issues relating to privacy and data protection are typically analysed in terms of general, and ill-fitting, criminal provisions relating to the unauthorized disclosure of secrets, or – in appropriate circumstances - industry-specific obligations relating to healthcare or credit data, or telecommunications sector subscriber data.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law is generally composed of 60 articles divided into three broad sections or ‘titles’. These are:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Title 1: Processing Provisions – Including definitions and general rules for the legality of processing, controls of data processing and transfer, statements as well as the rights of the data holder.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Title 2: Data Protection Authority - Including provisions relating to the establishment of the regulator, and its rights and responsibilities.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Title 3: Accountability of the data manager (data controller) and data processor – Including provisions relating to accountability to the regulator, investigation procedures, civil and criminal liability, and penalties for violation.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In this article, we consider some key areas addressed in the Data Protection Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Application</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Bahrain’s Data Protection Law describes the legal protection of personal privacy as among the main constitutional rights of the person, and notes that it should be protected, particularly in the context of the increasing use of electronic/digital means for processing information.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law applies to:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Every individual residing normally in Bahrain or having a workplace in Bahrain, and every legal person (corporate) having a place of business in the Kingdom of Bahrain; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Every individual not residing normally in Bahrain or having a workplace in Bahrain, and every legal person (corporate) not having a place of business in the Kingdom of Bahrain, where such persons are processing data using means available in Bahrain, except where such processing means are solely for the purpose of passing data through Bahrain.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In this latter scenario, the legal person (corporate) is required to appoint an authorized representative in Bahrain, and notify the Authority of such appointment. This provision would appear to affect, for example, corporate customers of cloud service providers, where the customer is based outside Bahrain, and the services being provided to the customer are being provided from data centres located in Bahrain.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Criminal provisions</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law criminalizes a variety of acts that would, at most, be the subject of administrative penalties in data protection laws elsewhere. Penalties generally comprise up to one year in prison and/or a fine of between BHD1,000 and BHD20,000 (between about USD 2,600 to about USD 53,000) (or a fine only in the case of corporate entities). The following are examples of activities that attract criminal penalties under the Law:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">processing sensitive personal data in violation of the provision specifying requirements for processing sensitive personal data;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">transferring personal data outside Bahrain contrary to the provisions specifying requirements for transfers to jurisdictions that provide an adequate level of data protection, and associated exceptions;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">processing personal data without notifying the Authority in accordance with the provision that sets out the obligation to notify the Authority before commencing any data processing activities (except where certain exceptions apply), or failing to update such notification to the Authority;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Processing personal data contrary to the provision that requires prior authorization from the Authority before processing personal data in certain circumstances;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Providing false or misleading information to the Authority or to a data subject, or withholding relevant information from the Authority, or otherwise hindering the Authority’s work; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Disclosing any data or information accessed due to work, or using the same for own benefit or for the benefit of others unreasonably and in violation of the provisions of this law.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<img class=\"wp-image-8068 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/56.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"429\" height=\"286\" />\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Security considerations</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Generally, the security of processing provisions, and the confidentiality provisions, appear to be fairly standard.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Data controllers are required to apply technical and organizational measures capable of protecting personal data against unintentional or unauthorized destruction, accidental loss, unauthorized alteration, disclosure or access, or any other form of processing. The measures adopted need to be appropriate, bearing in mind the nature of the data in question and the risks associated with processing it. The Law also indicates that ‘state-of-the-art’ technological protection measures should be adopted, but this is tempered by reference to the costs arising from use of such technology.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Additionally, the Law contemplates the issuance of a regulation specifying requirements that technical and organisational measures must satisfy. It also provides scope for specific requirements to be prescribed in such regulations.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Data controllers are required to maintain documentation that reflects the technical and organizational measures adopted. This documentation must be available for viewing by the parties concerned (presumably, including data subjects), as well as the Authority, any data processors, and the data controller itself.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">With regard to processing by data processors, the Law requires data controllers to engage only data processors who provide sufficient guarantees regarding the application of technical and organisational measures. Importantly, there is an obligation on data controllers to take steps to verify compliance with such measures, and to enter into a written contract with the data processor requiring that the data processor shall only process data in accordance with the instructions of the data controller, and in accordance with the data controller’s requirements with regard to security and confidentiality.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There does not appear to be any specific obligation to notify the Authority in the event of a data breach incident. It is possible that this level of detail might be addressed in the regulations, or that the Authority is expected to address breaches only in the event that they become aware of them, and the circumstances indicate a breach of the obligation to use suitable technical and organizational security measures.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Data protection supervisor</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law contemplates a role of ‘Data Protection Supervisor’ (which is not a data protection officer) intended to act as an independent and impartial intermediary between the data controller and the Authority.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The data protection supervisor will help the data controller fulfil its rights and obligations, and coordinate between the data controller and the Authority. It will also be required to verify the data controller’s processing in compliance with the law, alert the data controller to any apparent non-compliance to enable the issue to be addressed, and alert the Authority where such non-compliance has not been addressed within a specified timeframe. The data protection supervisor will also be required to maintain a register of the data controller’s processing operations that the data controller must notify the Authority, and update the Authority of the same on a monthly basis. (If no data protection supervisor is appointed, then the data controller is required to do this itself.)</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The qualifications and requirements for registration as a data protection supervisor will be officially issued, and data protection supervisors will need to be registered on a register maintained by the Authority. The requirement to appoint a data protection supervisor is optional, although it may be made compulsory for specific categories of data controllers.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The concept of a data protection supervisor has the potential to result in a whole new industry in the Bahrain market. The regulations setting out the requirements for the registration of data protection supervisors may shed greater light on what is anticipated, in terms of who might be able to fulfil such roles. The most natural development may be for the role to be filled by consulting/audit firms with expertise in data protection related issues.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Bahrain’s new Data Protection Law will require a great deal of attention from businesses operating in Bahrain. Data protection has not been a high priority topic for most businesses in Bahrain, with the limited exception of international entities subject to data protection requirements in other jurisdictions in which they operate. While the publication of the new Law will result in some degree of a lead-in period within which entities subject to the Law will need to comply, the fact that the Law creates criminal offences means that compliance is all the more important and should be treated as a high priority.</p>|<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-8044 alignnone\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/cvdfd.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"6000\" height=\"2401\" /></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Bahrain’s Law on the Protection of Personal Data was published on 19 July 2018, and will come into effect on 1 August 2019. The Law will require a variety of changes to the way businesses process personal data in Bahrain or about residents of Bahrain. Data protection has not been a high priority topic for most businesses in Bahrain, with the limited exception of international entities subject to data protection requirements in other jurisdictions in which they operate. While the publication of the new Law provides a considerable lead-in period within which entities subject to the Law will need to comply, the fact that the Law creates criminal offences means that compliance is all the more important and should be treated as a high priority.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Until now, and with one exception (namely, Qatar), none of the Gulf Cooperation Council member states had a modern, nationally applicable data protection law. Legal issues relating to privacy and data protection are typically analysed in terms of general, and ill-fitting, criminal provisions relating to the unauthorized disclosure of secrets, or – in appropriate circumstances - industry-specific obligations relating to healthcare or credit data, or telecommunications sector subscriber data.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law is generally composed of 60 articles divided into three broad sections or ‘titles’. These are:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Title 1: Processing Provisions – Including definitions and general rules for the legality of processing, controls of data processing and transfer, statements as well as the rights of the data holder.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Title 2: Data Protection Authority - Including provisions relating to the establishment of the regulator, and its rights and responsibilities.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Title 3: Accountability of the data manager (data controller) and data processor – Including provisions relating to accountability to the regulator, investigation procedures, civil and criminal liability, and penalties for violation.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In this article, we consider some key areas addressed in the Data Protection Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Application</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Bahrain’s Data Protection Law describes the legal protection of personal privacy as among the main constitutional rights of the person, and notes that it should be protected, particularly in the context of the increasing use of electronic/digital means for processing information.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law applies to:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Every individual residing normally in Bahrain or having a workplace in Bahrain, and every legal person (corporate) having a place of business in the Kingdom of Bahrain; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Every individual not residing normally in Bahrain or having a workplace in Bahrain, and every legal person (corporate) not having a place of business in the Kingdom of Bahrain, where such persons are processing data using means available in Bahrain, except where such processing means are solely for the purpose of passing data through Bahrain.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In this latter scenario, the legal person (corporate) is required to appoint an authorized representative in Bahrain, and notify the Authority of such appointment. This provision would appear to affect, for example, corporate customers of cloud service providers, where the customer is based outside Bahrain, and the services being provided to the customer are being provided from data centres located in Bahrain.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Criminal provisions</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law criminalizes a variety of acts that would, at most, be the subject of administrative penalties in data protection laws elsewhere. Penalties generally comprise up to one year in prison and/or a fine of between BHD1,000 and BHD20,000 (between about USD 2,600 to about USD 53,000) (or a fine only in the case of corporate entities). The following are examples of activities that attract criminal penalties under the Law:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">processing sensitive personal data in violation of the provision specifying requirements for processing sensitive personal data;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">transferring personal data outside Bahrain contrary to the provisions specifying requirements for transfers to jurisdictions that provide an adequate level of data protection, and associated exceptions;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">processing personal data without notifying the Authority in accordance with the provision that sets out the obligation to notify the Authority before commencing any data processing activities (except where certain exceptions apply), or failing to update such notification to the Authority;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Processing personal data contrary to the provision that requires prior authorization from the Authority before processing personal data in certain circumstances;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Providing false or misleading information to the Authority or to a data subject, or withholding relevant information from the Authority, or otherwise hindering the Authority’s work; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Disclosing any data or information accessed due to work, or using the same for own benefit or for the benefit of others unreasonably and in violation of the provisions of this law.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<img class=\"wp-image-8068 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/56.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"429\" height=\"286\" />\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Security considerations</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Generally, the security of processing provisions, and the confidentiality provisions, appear to be fairly standard.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Data controllers are required to apply technical and organizational measures capable of protecting personal data against unintentional or unauthorized destruction, accidental loss, unauthorized alteration, disclosure or access, or any other form of processing. The measures adopted need to be appropriate, bearing in mind the nature of the data in question and the risks associated with processing it. The Law also indicates that ‘state-of-the-art’ technological protection measures should be adopted, but this is tempered by reference to the costs arising from use of such technology.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Additionally, the Law contemplates the issuance of a regulation specifying requirements that technical and organisational measures must satisfy. It also provides scope for specific requirements to be prescribed in such regulations.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Data controllers are required to maintain documentation that reflects the technical and organizational measures adopted. This documentation must be available for viewing by the parties concerned (presumably, including data subjects), as well as the Authority, any data processors, and the data controller itself.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">With regard to processing by data processors, the Law requires data controllers to engage only data processors who provide sufficient guarantees regarding the application of technical and organisational measures. Importantly, there is an obligation on data controllers to take steps to verify compliance with such measures, and to enter into a written contract with the data processor requiring that the data processor shall only process data in accordance with the instructions of the data controller, and in accordance with the data controller’s requirements with regard to security and confidentiality.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There does not appear to be any specific obligation to notify the Authority in the event of a data breach incident. It is possible that this level of detail might be addressed in the regulations, or that the Authority is expected to address breaches only in the event that they become aware of them, and the circumstances indicate a breach of the obligation to use suitable technical and organizational security measures.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Data protection supervisor</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law contemplates a role of ‘Data Protection Supervisor’ (which is not a data protection officer) intended to act as an independent and impartial intermediary between the data controller and the Authority.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The data protection supervisor will help the data controller fulfil its rights and obligations, and coordinate between the data controller and the Authority. It will also be required to verify the data controller’s processing in compliance with the law, alert the data controller to any apparent non-compliance to enable the issue to be addressed, and alert the Authority where such non-compliance has not been addressed within a specified timeframe. The data protection supervisor will also be required to maintain a register of the data controller’s processing operations that the data controller must notify the Authority, and update the Authority of the same on a monthly basis. (If no data protection supervisor is appointed, then the data controller is required to do this itself.)</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The qualifications and requirements for registration as a data protection supervisor will be officially issued, and data protection supervisors will need to be registered on a register maintained by the Authority. The requirement to appoint a data protection supervisor is optional, although it may be made compulsory for specific categories of data controllers.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The concept of a data protection supervisor has the potential to result in a whole new industry in the Bahrain market. The regulations setting out the requirements for the registration of data protection supervisors may shed greater light on what is anticipated, in terms of who might be able to fulfil such roles. The most natural development may be for the role to be filled by consulting/audit firms with expertise in data protection related issues.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Bahrain’s new Data Protection Law will require a great deal of attention from businesses operating in Bahrain. Data protection has not been a high priority topic for most businesses in Bahrain, with the limited exception of international entities subject to data protection requirements in other jurisdictions in which they operate. While the publication of the new Law will result in some degree of a lead-in period within which entities subject to the Law will need to comply, the fact that the Law creates criminal offences means that compliance is all the more important and should be treated as a high priority.</p>'),
(260555, 25280, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(260556, 25280, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_2) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(260557, 25280, 'CurrentUserID', '1'),
(260558, 25280, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(260559, 25281, 'PostID', '7957'),
(260560, 25281, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(260561, 25281, 'PostTitle', 'Catching the wave: New Data Protection Law in Bahrain'),
(260562, 25281, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(260563, 25281, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:45:44'),
(260564, 25281, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/catching-the-wave-new-data-protection-law-in-bahrain/'),
(260565, 25281, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7957&amp;action=edit'),
(260566, 25281, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(260567, 25281, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_2) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(260568, 25281, 'CurrentUserID', '1'),
(260569, 25281, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(260570, 25282, 'PostID', '7957'),
(260571, 25282, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(260572, 25282, 'PostTitle', 'Catching the wave: New Data Protection Law in Bahrain'),
(260573, 25282, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(260574, 25282, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:45:44'),
(260575, 25282, 'PostUrl', 'https://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/catching-the-wave-new-data-protection-law-in-bahrain/'),
(260576, 25282, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7957&amp;action=edit'),
(260577, 25282, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(260578, 25282, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_2) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(260579, 25282, 'CurrentUserID', '1'),
(260580, 25282, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(260581, 25283, 'PostID', '7940'),
(260582, 25283, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(260583, 25283, 'PostTitle', 'Stuck between a rock and a hard place… : The UK’s Unexplained Wealth Orders and the effect in the Middle East'),
(260584, 25283, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(260585, 25283, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:41:14'),
(260586, 25283, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/stuck-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-the-uks-unexplained-wealth-orders-and-the-effect-in-the-middle-east/'),
(260587, 25283, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7940&amp;action=edit'),
(260588, 25283, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(260589, 25283, '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'),
(260590, 25283, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(260591, 25283, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(260592, 25284, 'PostID', '7940'),
(260593, 25284, 'PostTitle', 'Stuck between a rock and a hard place… : The UK’s Unexplained Wealth Orders and the effect in the Middle East'),
(260594, 25284, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(260595, 25284, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(260596, 25284, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:41:14'),
(260597, 25284, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/stuck-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-the-uks-unexplained-wealth-orders-and-the-effect-in-the-middle-east/'),
(260598, 25284, 'MetaID', '223314'),
(260599, 25284, 'MetaKey', 'content'),
(260600, 25284, 'MetaValueNew', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8002\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/17-1.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3567\" height=\"715\" />\r\n</br>The 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.</p>\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</br><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</br><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</br><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</br><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</br><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</br><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 size-medium alignright\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-31-at-5.43.01-PM-242x300.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"242\" height=\"300\" /></br>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</br><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
(260601, 25284, 'MetaValueOld', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8002\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/17-1.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3567\" height=\"715\" />The 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.</p>\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<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<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<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<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<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<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 size-medium alignright\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-31-at-5.43.01-PM-242x300.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"242\" height=\"300\" />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<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.'),
(260602, 25284, 'MetaLink', 'content'),
(260603, 25284, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7940&amp;action=edit'),
(260604, 25284, 'ReportText', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8002\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/17-1.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3567\" height=\"715\" />The 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.</p>\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<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<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<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<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<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<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 size-medium alignright\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-31-at-5.43.01-PM-242x300.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"242\" height=\"300\" />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<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.|<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8002\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/17-1.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3567\" height=\"715\" />\r\n</br>The 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.</p>\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</br><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</br><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</br><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</br><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</br><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</br><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 size-medium alignright\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-31-at-5.43.01-PM-242x300.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"242\" height=\"300\" /></br>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</br><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.'),
(260605, 25284, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(260606, 25284, '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'),
(260607, 25284, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(260608, 25284, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(260609, 25285, 'PostID', '7957'),
(260610, 25285, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(260611, 25285, 'PostTitle', 'Catching the wave: New Data Protection Law in Bahrain'),
(260612, 25285, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(260613, 25285, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:45:44'),
(260614, 25285, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/catching-the-wave-new-data-protection-law-in-bahrain/'),
(260615, 25285, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7957&amp;action=edit'),
(260616, 25285, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(260617, 25285, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_2) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(260618, 25285, 'CurrentUserID', '1'),
(260619, 25285, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(260620, 25286, 'PostID', '7957'),
(260621, 25286, 'PostTitle', 'Catching the wave: New Data Protection Law in Bahrain'),
(260622, 25286, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(260623, 25286, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(260624, 25286, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:45:44'),
(260625, 25286, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/catching-the-wave-new-data-protection-law-in-bahrain/'),
(260626, 25286, 'MetaID', '224072'),
(260627, 25286, 'MetaKey', 'content');
INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`) VALUES
(260628, 25286, 'MetaValueNew', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-8044 alignnone\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/cvdfd.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"6000\" height=\"2401\" /></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Bahrain’s Law on the Protection of Personal Data was published on 19 July 2018, and will come into effect on 1 August 2019. The Law will require a variety of changes to the way businesses process personal data in Bahrain or about residents of Bahrain. Data protection has not been a high priority topic for most businesses in Bahrain, with the limited exception of international entities subject to data protection requirements in other jurisdictions in which they operate. While the publication of the new Law provides a considerable lead-in period within which entities subject to the Law will need to comply, the fact that the Law creates criminal offences means that compliance is all the more important and should be treated as a high priority.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Until now, and with one exception (namely, Qatar), none of the Gulf Cooperation Council member states had a modern, nationally applicable data protection law. Legal issues relating to privacy and data protection are typically analysed in terms of general, and ill-fitting, criminal provisions relating to the unauthorized disclosure of secrets, or – in appropriate circumstances - industry-specific obligations relating to healthcare or credit data, or telecommunications sector subscriber data.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law is generally composed of 60 articles divided into three broad sections or ‘titles’. These are:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Title 1: Processing Provisions – Including definitions and general rules for the legality of processing, controls of data processing and transfer, statements as well as the rights of the data holder.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Title 2: Data Protection Authority - Including provisions relating to the establishment of the regulator, and its rights and responsibilities.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Title 3: Accountability of the data manager (data controller) and data processor – Including provisions relating to accountability to the regulator, investigation procedures, civil and criminal liability, and penalties for violation.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In this article, we consider some key areas addressed in the Data Protection Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Application</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Bahrain’s Data Protection Law describes the legal protection of personal privacy as among the main constitutional rights of the person, and notes that it should be protected, particularly in the context of the increasing use of electronic/digital means for processing information.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law applies to:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Every individual residing normally in Bahrain or having a workplace in Bahrain, and every legal person (corporate) having a place of business in the Kingdom of Bahrain; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Every individual not residing normally in Bahrain or having a workplace in Bahrain, and every legal person (corporate) not having a place of business in the Kingdom of Bahrain, where such persons are processing data using means available in Bahrain, except where such processing means are solely for the purpose of passing data through Bahrain.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In this latter scenario, the legal person (corporate) is required to appoint an authorized representative in Bahrain, and notify the Authority of such appointment. This provision would appear to affect, for example, corporate customers of cloud service providers, where the customer is based outside Bahrain, and the services being provided to the customer are being provided from data centres located in Bahrain.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Criminal provisions</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law criminalizes a variety of acts that would, at most, be the subject of administrative penalties in data protection laws elsewhere. Penalties generally comprise up to one year in prison and/or a fine of between BHD1,000 and BHD20,000 (between about USD 2,600 to about USD 53,000) (or a fine only in the case of corporate entities). The following are examples of activities that attract criminal penalties under the Law:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">processing sensitive personal data in violation of the provision specifying requirements for processing sensitive personal data;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">transferring personal data outside Bahrain contrary to the provisions specifying requirements for transfers to jurisdictions that provide an adequate level of data protection, and associated exceptions;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">processing personal data without notifying the Authority in accordance with the provision that sets out the obligation to notify the Authority before commencing any data processing activities (except where certain exceptions apply), or failing to update such notification to the Authority;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Processing personal data contrary to the provision that requires prior authorization from the Authority before processing personal data in certain circumstances;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Providing false or misleading information to the Authority or to a data subject, or withholding relevant information from the Authority, or otherwise hindering the Authority’s work; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Disclosing any data or information accessed due to work, or using the same for own benefit or for the benefit of others unreasonably and in violation of the provisions of this law.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<img class=\"wp-image-8068 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/56.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"429\" height=\"286\" />\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Security considerations</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Generally, the security of processing provisions, and the confidentiality provisions, appear to be fairly standard.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Data controllers are required to apply technical and organizational measures capable of protecting personal data against unintentional or unauthorized destruction, accidental loss, unauthorized alteration, disclosure or access, or any other form of processing. The measures adopted need to be appropriate, bearing in mind the nature of the data in question and the risks associated with processing it. The Law also indicates that ‘state-of-the-art’ technological protection measures should be adopted, but this is tempered by reference to the costs arising from use of such technology.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Additionally, the Law contemplates the issuance of a regulation specifying requirements that technical and organisational measures must satisfy. It also provides scope for specific requirements to be prescribed in such regulations.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Data controllers are required to maintain documentation that reflects the technical and organizational measures adopted. This documentation must be available for viewing by the parties concerned (presumably, including data subjects), as well as the Authority, any data processors, and the data controller itself.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">With regard to processing by data processors, the Law requires data controllers to engage only data processors who provide sufficient guarantees regarding the application of technical and organisational measures. Importantly, there is an obligation on data controllers to take steps to verify compliance with such measures, and to enter into a written contract with the data processor requiring that the data processor shall only process data in accordance with the instructions of the data controller, and in accordance with the data controller’s requirements with regard to security and confidentiality.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There does not appear to be any specific obligation to notify the Authority in the event of a data breach incident. It is possible that this level of detail might be addressed in the regulations, or that the Authority is expected to address breaches only in the event that they become aware of them, and the circumstances indicate a breach of the obligation to use suitable technical and organizational security measures.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Data protection supervisor</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law contemplates a role of ‘Data Protection Supervisor’ (which is not a data protection officer) intended to act as an independent and impartial intermediary between the data controller and the Authority.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The data protection supervisor will help the data controller fulfil its rights and obligations, and coordinate between the data controller and the Authority. It will also be required to verify the data controller’s processing in compliance with the law, alert the data controller to any apparent non-compliance to enable the issue to be addressed, and alert the Authority where such non-compliance has not been addressed within a specified timeframe. The data protection supervisor will also be required to maintain a register of the data controller’s processing operations that the data controller must notify the Authority, and update the Authority of the same on a monthly basis. (If no data protection supervisor is appointed, then the data controller is required to do this itself.)</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The qualifications and requirements for registration as a data protection supervisor will be officially issued, and data protection supervisors will need to be registered on a register maintained by the Authority. The requirement to appoint a data protection supervisor is optional, although it may be made compulsory for specific categories of data controllers.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The concept of a data protection supervisor has the potential to result in a whole new industry in the Bahrain market. The regulations setting out the requirements for the registration of data protection supervisors may shed greater light on what is anticipated, in terms of who might be able to fulfil such roles. The most natural development may be for the role to be filled by consulting/audit firms with expertise in data protection related issues.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Bahrain’s new Data Protection Law will require a great deal of attention from businesses operating in Bahrain. Data protection has not been a high priority topic for most businesses in Bahrain, with the limited exception of international entities subject to data protection requirements in other jurisdictions in which they operate. While the publication of the new Law will result in some degree of a lead-in period within which entities subject to the Law will need to comply, the fact that the Law creates criminal offences means that compliance is all the more important and should be treated as a high priority.</p>'),
(260629, 25286, 'MetaValueOld', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-8044 alignnone\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/cvdfd.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"6000\" height=\"2401\" /></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Bahrain’s Law on the Protection of Personal Data was published on 19 July 2018, and will come into effect on 1 August 2019. The Law will require a variety of changes to the way businesses process personal data in Bahrain or about residents of Bahrain. Data protection has not been a high priority topic for most businesses in Bahrain, with the limited exception of international entities subject to data protection requirements in other jurisdictions in which they operate. While the publication of the new Law provides a considerable lead-in period within which entities subject to the Law will need to comply, the fact that the Law creates criminal offences means that compliance is all the more important and should be treated as a high priority.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Until now, and with one exception (namely, Qatar), none of the Gulf Cooperation Council member states had a modern, nationally applicable data protection law. Legal issues relating to privacy and data protection are typically analysed in terms of general, and ill-fitting, criminal provisions relating to the unauthorized disclosure of secrets, or – in appropriate circumstances - industry-specific obligations relating to healthcare or credit data, or telecommunications sector subscriber data.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law is generally composed of 60 articles divided into three broad sections or ‘titles’. These are:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Title 1: Processing Provisions – Including definitions and general rules for the legality of processing, controls of data processing and transfer, statements as well as the rights of the data holder.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Title 2: Data Protection Authority - Including provisions relating to the establishment of the regulator, and its rights and responsibilities.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Title 3: Accountability of the data manager (data controller) and data processor – Including provisions relating to accountability to the regulator, investigation procedures, civil and criminal liability, and penalties for violation.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In this article, we consider some key areas addressed in the Data Protection Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Application</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Bahrain’s Data Protection Law describes the legal protection of personal privacy as among the main constitutional rights of the person, and notes that it should be protected, particularly in the context of the increasing use of electronic/digital means for processing information.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law applies to:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Every individual residing normally in Bahrain or having a workplace in Bahrain, and every legal person (corporate) having a place of business in the Kingdom of Bahrain; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Every individual not residing normally in Bahrain or having a workplace in Bahrain, and every legal person (corporate) not having a place of business in the Kingdom of Bahrain, where such persons are processing data using means available in Bahrain, except where such processing means are solely for the purpose of passing data through Bahrain.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In this latter scenario, the legal person (corporate) is required to appoint an authorized representative in Bahrain, and notify the Authority of such appointment. This provision would appear to affect, for example, corporate customers of cloud service providers, where the customer is based outside Bahrain, and the services being provided to the customer are being provided from data centres located in Bahrain.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Criminal provisions</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law criminalizes a variety of acts that would, at most, be the subject of administrative penalties in data protection laws elsewhere. Penalties generally comprise up to one year in prison and/or a fine of between BHD1,000 and BHD20,000 (between about USD 2,600 to about USD 53,000) (or a fine only in the case of corporate entities). The following are examples of activities that attract criminal penalties under the Law:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">processing sensitive personal data in violation of the provision specifying requirements for processing sensitive personal data;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">transferring personal data outside Bahrain contrary to the provisions specifying requirements for transfers to jurisdictions that provide an adequate level of data protection, and associated exceptions;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">processing personal data without notifying the Authority in accordance with the provision that sets out the obligation to notify the Authority before commencing any data processing activities (except where certain exceptions apply), or failing to update such notification to the Authority;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Processing personal data contrary to the provision that requires prior authorization from the Authority before processing personal data in certain circumstances;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Providing false or misleading information to the Authority or to a data subject, or withholding relevant information from the Authority, or otherwise hindering the Authority’s work; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Disclosing any data or information accessed due to work, or using the same for own benefit or for the benefit of others unreasonably and in violation of the provisions of this law.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<img class=\"wp-image-8068 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/56.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"429\" height=\"286\" />\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Security considerations</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Generally, the security of processing provisions, and the confidentiality provisions, appear to be fairly standard.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Data controllers are required to apply technical and organizational measures capable of protecting personal data against unintentional or unauthorized destruction, accidental loss, unauthorized alteration, disclosure or access, or any other form of processing. The measures adopted need to be appropriate, bearing in mind the nature of the data in question and the risks associated with processing it. The Law also indicates that ‘state-of-the-art’ technological protection measures should be adopted, but this is tempered by reference to the costs arising from use of such technology.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Additionally, the Law contemplates the issuance of a regulation specifying requirements that technical and organisational measures must satisfy. It also provides scope for specific requirements to be prescribed in such regulations.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Data controllers are required to maintain documentation that reflects the technical and organizational measures adopted. This documentation must be available for viewing by the parties concerned (presumably, including data subjects), as well as the Authority, any data processors, and the data controller itself.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">With regard to processing by data processors, the Law requires data controllers to engage only data processors who provide sufficient guarantees regarding the application of technical and organisational measures. Importantly, there is an obligation on data controllers to take steps to verify compliance with such measures, and to enter into a written contract with the data processor requiring that the data processor shall only process data in accordance with the instructions of the data controller, and in accordance with the data controller’s requirements with regard to security and confidentiality.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There does not appear to be any specific obligation to notify the Authority in the event of a data breach incident. It is possible that this level of detail might be addressed in the regulations, or that the Authority is expected to address breaches only in the event that they become aware of them, and the circumstances indicate a breach of the obligation to use suitable technical and organizational security measures.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Data protection supervisor</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law contemplates a role of ‘Data Protection Supervisor’ (which is not a data protection officer) intended to act as an independent and impartial intermediary between the data controller and the Authority.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The data protection supervisor will help the data controller fulfil its rights and obligations, and coordinate between the data controller and the Authority. It will also be required to verify the data controller’s processing in compliance with the law, alert the data controller to any apparent non-compliance to enable the issue to be addressed, and alert the Authority where such non-compliance has not been addressed within a specified timeframe. The data protection supervisor will also be required to maintain a register of the data controller’s processing operations that the data controller must notify the Authority, and update the Authority of the same on a monthly basis. (If no data protection supervisor is appointed, then the data controller is required to do this itself.)</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The qualifications and requirements for registration as a data protection supervisor will be officially issued, and data protection supervisors will need to be registered on a register maintained by the Authority. The requirement to appoint a data protection supervisor is optional, although it may be made compulsory for specific categories of data controllers.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The concept of a data protection supervisor has the potential to result in a whole new industry in the Bahrain market. The regulations setting out the requirements for the registration of data protection supervisors may shed greater light on what is anticipated, in terms of who might be able to fulfil such roles. The most natural development may be for the role to be filled by consulting/audit firms with expertise in data protection related issues.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Bahrain’s new Data Protection Law will require a great deal of attention from businesses operating in Bahrain. Data protection has not been a high priority topic for most businesses in Bahrain, with the limited exception of international entities subject to data protection requirements in other jurisdictions in which they operate. While the publication of the new Law will result in some degree of a lead-in period within which entities subject to the Law will need to comply, the fact that the Law creates criminal offences means that compliance is all the more important and should be treated as a high priority.</p>'),
(260630, 25286, 'MetaLink', 'content'),
(260631, 25286, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7957&amp;action=edit'),
(260632, 25286, 'ReportText', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-8044 alignnone\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/cvdfd.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"6000\" height=\"2401\" /></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Bahrain’s Law on the Protection of Personal Data was published on 19 July 2018, and will come into effect on 1 August 2019. The Law will require a variety of changes to the way businesses process personal data in Bahrain or about residents of Bahrain. Data protection has not been a high priority topic for most businesses in Bahrain, with the limited exception of international entities subject to data protection requirements in other jurisdictions in which they operate. While the publication of the new Law provides a considerable lead-in period within which entities subject to the Law will need to comply, the fact that the Law creates criminal offences means that compliance is all the more important and should be treated as a high priority.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Until now, and with one exception (namely, Qatar), none of the Gulf Cooperation Council member states had a modern, nationally applicable data protection law. Legal issues relating to privacy and data protection are typically analysed in terms of general, and ill-fitting, criminal provisions relating to the unauthorized disclosure of secrets, or – in appropriate circumstances - industry-specific obligations relating to healthcare or credit data, or telecommunications sector subscriber data.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law is generally composed of 60 articles divided into three broad sections or ‘titles’. These are:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Title 1: Processing Provisions – Including definitions and general rules for the legality of processing, controls of data processing and transfer, statements as well as the rights of the data holder.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Title 2: Data Protection Authority - Including provisions relating to the establishment of the regulator, and its rights and responsibilities.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Title 3: Accountability of the data manager (data controller) and data processor – Including provisions relating to accountability to the regulator, investigation procedures, civil and criminal liability, and penalties for violation.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In this article, we consider some key areas addressed in the Data Protection Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Application</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Bahrain’s Data Protection Law describes the legal protection of personal privacy as among the main constitutional rights of the person, and notes that it should be protected, particularly in the context of the increasing use of electronic/digital means for processing information.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law applies to:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Every individual residing normally in Bahrain or having a workplace in Bahrain, and every legal person (corporate) having a place of business in the Kingdom of Bahrain; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Every individual not residing normally in Bahrain or having a workplace in Bahrain, and every legal person (corporate) not having a place of business in the Kingdom of Bahrain, where such persons are processing data using means available in Bahrain, except where such processing means are solely for the purpose of passing data through Bahrain.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In this latter scenario, the legal person (corporate) is required to appoint an authorized representative in Bahrain, and notify the Authority of such appointment. This provision would appear to affect, for example, corporate customers of cloud service providers, where the customer is based outside Bahrain, and the services being provided to the customer are being provided from data centres located in Bahrain.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Criminal provisions</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law criminalizes a variety of acts that would, at most, be the subject of administrative penalties in data protection laws elsewhere. Penalties generally comprise up to one year in prison and/or a fine of between BHD1,000 and BHD20,000 (between about USD 2,600 to about USD 53,000) (or a fine only in the case of corporate entities). The following are examples of activities that attract criminal penalties under the Law:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">processing sensitive personal data in violation of the provision specifying requirements for processing sensitive personal data;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">transferring personal data outside Bahrain contrary to the provisions specifying requirements for transfers to jurisdictions that provide an adequate level of data protection, and associated exceptions;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">processing personal data without notifying the Authority in accordance with the provision that sets out the obligation to notify the Authority before commencing any data processing activities (except where certain exceptions apply), or failing to update such notification to the Authority;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Processing personal data contrary to the provision that requires prior authorization from the Authority before processing personal data in certain circumstances;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Providing false or misleading information to the Authority or to a data subject, or withholding relevant information from the Authority, or otherwise hindering the Authority’s work; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Disclosing any data or information accessed due to work, or using the same for own benefit or for the benefit of others unreasonably and in violation of the provisions of this law.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<img class=\"wp-image-8068 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/56.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"429\" height=\"286\" />\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Security considerations</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Generally, the security of processing provisions, and the confidentiality provisions, appear to be fairly standard.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Data controllers are required to apply technical and organizational measures capable of protecting personal data against unintentional or unauthorized destruction, accidental loss, unauthorized alteration, disclosure or access, or any other form of processing. The measures adopted need to be appropriate, bearing in mind the nature of the data in question and the risks associated with processing it. The Law also indicates that ‘state-of-the-art’ technological protection measures should be adopted, but this is tempered by reference to the costs arising from use of such technology.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Additionally, the Law contemplates the issuance of a regulation specifying requirements that technical and organisational measures must satisfy. It also provides scope for specific requirements to be prescribed in such regulations.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Data controllers are required to maintain documentation that reflects the technical and organizational measures adopted. This documentation must be available for viewing by the parties concerned (presumably, including data subjects), as well as the Authority, any data processors, and the data controller itself.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">With regard to processing by data processors, the Law requires data controllers to engage only data processors who provide sufficient guarantees regarding the application of technical and organisational measures. Importantly, there is an obligation on data controllers to take steps to verify compliance with such measures, and to enter into a written contract with the data processor requiring that the data processor shall only process data in accordance with the instructions of the data controller, and in accordance with the data controller’s requirements with regard to security and confidentiality.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There does not appear to be any specific obligation to notify the Authority in the event of a data breach incident. It is possible that this level of detail might be addressed in the regulations, or that the Authority is expected to address breaches only in the event that they become aware of them, and the circumstances indicate a breach of the obligation to use suitable technical and organizational security measures.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Data protection supervisor</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law contemplates a role of ‘Data Protection Supervisor’ (which is not a data protection officer) intended to act as an independent and impartial intermediary between the data controller and the Authority.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The data protection supervisor will help the data controller fulfil its rights and obligations, and coordinate between the data controller and the Authority. It will also be required to verify the data controller’s processing in compliance with the law, alert the data controller to any apparent non-compliance to enable the issue to be addressed, and alert the Authority where such non-compliance has not been addressed within a specified timeframe. The data protection supervisor will also be required to maintain a register of the data controller’s processing operations that the data controller must notify the Authority, and update the Authority of the same on a monthly basis. (If no data protection supervisor is appointed, then the data controller is required to do this itself.)</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The qualifications and requirements for registration as a data protection supervisor will be officially issued, and data protection supervisors will need to be registered on a register maintained by the Authority. The requirement to appoint a data protection supervisor is optional, although it may be made compulsory for specific categories of data controllers.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The concept of a data protection supervisor has the potential to result in a whole new industry in the Bahrain market. The regulations setting out the requirements for the registration of data protection supervisors may shed greater light on what is anticipated, in terms of who might be able to fulfil such roles. The most natural development may be for the role to be filled by consulting/audit firms with expertise in data protection related issues.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Bahrain’s new Data Protection Law will require a great deal of attention from businesses operating in Bahrain. Data protection has not been a high priority topic for most businesses in Bahrain, with the limited exception of international entities subject to data protection requirements in other jurisdictions in which they operate. While the publication of the new Law will result in some degree of a lead-in period within which entities subject to the Law will need to comply, the fact that the Law creates criminal offences means that compliance is all the more important and should be treated as a high priority.</p>|<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-8044 alignnone\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/cvdfd.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"6000\" height=\"2401\" /></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Bahrain’s Law on the Protection of Personal Data was published on 19 July 2018, and will come into effect on 1 August 2019. The Law will require a variety of changes to the way businesses process personal data in Bahrain or about residents of Bahrain. Data protection has not been a high priority topic for most businesses in Bahrain, with the limited exception of international entities subject to data protection requirements in other jurisdictions in which they operate. While the publication of the new Law provides a considerable lead-in period within which entities subject to the Law will need to comply, the fact that the Law creates criminal offences means that compliance is all the more important and should be treated as a high priority.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Until now, and with one exception (namely, Qatar), none of the Gulf Cooperation Council member states had a modern, nationally applicable data protection law. Legal issues relating to privacy and data protection are typically analysed in terms of general, and ill-fitting, criminal provisions relating to the unauthorized disclosure of secrets, or – in appropriate circumstances - industry-specific obligations relating to healthcare or credit data, or telecommunications sector subscriber data.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law is generally composed of 60 articles divided into three broad sections or ‘titles’. These are:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Title 1: Processing Provisions – Including definitions and general rules for the legality of processing, controls of data processing and transfer, statements as well as the rights of the data holder.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Title 2: Data Protection Authority - Including provisions relating to the establishment of the regulator, and its rights and responsibilities.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Title 3: Accountability of the data manager (data controller) and data processor – Including provisions relating to accountability to the regulator, investigation procedures, civil and criminal liability, and penalties for violation.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In this article, we consider some key areas addressed in the Data Protection Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Application</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Bahrain’s Data Protection Law describes the legal protection of personal privacy as among the main constitutional rights of the person, and notes that it should be protected, particularly in the context of the increasing use of electronic/digital means for processing information.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law applies to:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Every individual residing normally in Bahrain or having a workplace in Bahrain, and every legal person (corporate) having a place of business in the Kingdom of Bahrain; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Every individual not residing normally in Bahrain or having a workplace in Bahrain, and every legal person (corporate) not having a place of business in the Kingdom of Bahrain, where such persons are processing data using means available in Bahrain, except where such processing means are solely for the purpose of passing data through Bahrain.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In this latter scenario, the legal person (corporate) is required to appoint an authorized representative in Bahrain, and notify the Authority of such appointment. This provision would appear to affect, for example, corporate customers of cloud service providers, where the customer is based outside Bahrain, and the services being provided to the customer are being provided from data centres located in Bahrain.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Criminal provisions</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law criminalizes a variety of acts that would, at most, be the subject of administrative penalties in data protection laws elsewhere. Penalties generally comprise up to one year in prison and/or a fine of between BHD1,000 and BHD20,000 (between about USD 2,600 to about USD 53,000) (or a fine only in the case of corporate entities). The following are examples of activities that attract criminal penalties under the Law:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">processing sensitive personal data in violation of the provision specifying requirements for processing sensitive personal data;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">transferring personal data outside Bahrain contrary to the provisions specifying requirements for transfers to jurisdictions that provide an adequate level of data protection, and associated exceptions;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">processing personal data without notifying the Authority in accordance with the provision that sets out the obligation to notify the Authority before commencing any data processing activities (except where certain exceptions apply), or failing to update such notification to the Authority;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Processing personal data contrary to the provision that requires prior authorization from the Authority before processing personal data in certain circumstances;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Providing false or misleading information to the Authority or to a data subject, or withholding relevant information from the Authority, or otherwise hindering the Authority’s work; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Disclosing any data or information accessed due to work, or using the same for own benefit or for the benefit of others unreasonably and in violation of the provisions of this law.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<img class=\"wp-image-8068 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/56.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"429\" height=\"286\" />\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Security considerations</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Generally, the security of processing provisions, and the confidentiality provisions, appear to be fairly standard.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Data controllers are required to apply technical and organizational measures capable of protecting personal data against unintentional or unauthorized destruction, accidental loss, unauthorized alteration, disclosure or access, or any other form of processing. The measures adopted need to be appropriate, bearing in mind the nature of the data in question and the risks associated with processing it. The Law also indicates that ‘state-of-the-art’ technological protection measures should be adopted, but this is tempered by reference to the costs arising from use of such technology.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Additionally, the Law contemplates the issuance of a regulation specifying requirements that technical and organisational measures must satisfy. It also provides scope for specific requirements to be prescribed in such regulations.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Data controllers are required to maintain documentation that reflects the technical and organizational measures adopted. This documentation must be available for viewing by the parties concerned (presumably, including data subjects), as well as the Authority, any data processors, and the data controller itself.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">With regard to processing by data processors, the Law requires data controllers to engage only data processors who provide sufficient guarantees regarding the application of technical and organisational measures. Importantly, there is an obligation on data controllers to take steps to verify compliance with such measures, and to enter into a written contract with the data processor requiring that the data processor shall only process data in accordance with the instructions of the data controller, and in accordance with the data controller’s requirements with regard to security and confidentiality.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There does not appear to be any specific obligation to notify the Authority in the event of a data breach incident. It is possible that this level of detail might be addressed in the regulations, or that the Authority is expected to address breaches only in the event that they become aware of them, and the circumstances indicate a breach of the obligation to use suitable technical and organizational security measures.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Data protection supervisor</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law contemplates a role of ‘Data Protection Supervisor’ (which is not a data protection officer) intended to act as an independent and impartial intermediary between the data controller and the Authority.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The data protection supervisor will help the data controller fulfil its rights and obligations, and coordinate between the data controller and the Authority. It will also be required to verify the data controller’s processing in compliance with the law, alert the data controller to any apparent non-compliance to enable the issue to be addressed, and alert the Authority where such non-compliance has not been addressed within a specified timeframe. The data protection supervisor will also be required to maintain a register of the data controller’s processing operations that the data controller must notify the Authority, and update the Authority of the same on a monthly basis. (If no data protection supervisor is appointed, then the data controller is required to do this itself.)</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The qualifications and requirements for registration as a data protection supervisor will be officially issued, and data protection supervisors will need to be registered on a register maintained by the Authority. The requirement to appoint a data protection supervisor is optional, although it may be made compulsory for specific categories of data controllers.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The concept of a data protection supervisor has the potential to result in a whole new industry in the Bahrain market. The regulations setting out the requirements for the registration of data protection supervisors may shed greater light on what is anticipated, in terms of who might be able to fulfil such roles. The most natural development may be for the role to be filled by consulting/audit firms with expertise in data protection related issues.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Bahrain’s new Data Protection Law will require a great deal of attention from businesses operating in Bahrain. Data protection has not been a high priority topic for most businesses in Bahrain, with the limited exception of international entities subject to data protection requirements in other jurisdictions in which they operate. While the publication of the new Law will result in some degree of a lead-in period within which entities subject to the Law will need to comply, the fact that the Law creates criminal offences means that compliance is all the more important and should be treated as a high priority.</p>'),
(260633, 25286, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(260634, 25286, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_2) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(260635, 25286, 'CurrentUserID', '1'),
(260636, 25286, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(260637, 25287, 'PostID', '7940'),
(260638, 25287, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(260639, 25287, 'PostTitle', 'Stuck between a rock and a hard place… : The UK’s Unexplained Wealth Orders and the effect in the Middle East'),
(260640, 25287, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(260641, 25287, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:41:14'),
(260642, 25287, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/stuck-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-the-uks-unexplained-wealth-orders-and-the-effect-in-the-middle-east/'),
(260643, 25287, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7940&amp;action=edit'),
(260644, 25287, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(260645, 25287, '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'),
(260646, 25287, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(260647, 25287, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(260648, 25288, 'PostID', '7940'),
(260649, 25288, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(260650, 25288, 'PostTitle', 'Stuck between a rock and a hard place… : The UK’s Unexplained Wealth Orders and the effect in the Middle East'),
(260651, 25288, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(260652, 25288, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:41:14'),
(260653, 25288, 'PostUrl', 'https://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/stuck-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-the-uks-unexplained-wealth-orders-and-the-effect-in-the-middle-east/'),
(260654, 25288, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7940&amp;action=edit'),
(260655, 25288, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(260656, 25288, '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'),
(260657, 25288, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(260658, 25288, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(260659, 25289, 'PostID', '7957'),
(260660, 25289, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(260661, 25289, 'PostTitle', 'Catching the wave: New Data Protection Law in Bahrain'),
(260662, 25289, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(260663, 25289, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:45:44'),
(260664, 25289, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/catching-the-wave-new-data-protection-law-in-bahrain/'),
(260665, 25289, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7957&amp;action=edit'),
(260666, 25289, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(260667, 25289, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_2) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(260668, 25289, 'CurrentUserID', '1'),
(260669, 25289, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(260670, 25290, 'PostID', '7957'),
(260671, 25290, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(260672, 25290, 'PostTitle', 'Catching the wave: New Data Protection Law in Bahrain'),
(260673, 25290, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(260674, 25290, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:45:44'),
(260675, 25290, 'PostUrl', 'https://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/catching-the-wave-new-data-protection-law-in-bahrain/'),
(260676, 25290, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7957&amp;action=edit'),
(260677, 25290, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(260678, 25290, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_2) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(260679, 25290, 'CurrentUserID', '1'),
(260680, 25290, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(260681, 25291, 'PostID', '7940'),
(260682, 25291, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(260683, 25291, 'PostTitle', 'Stuck between a rock and a hard place… : The UK’s Unexplained Wealth Orders and the effect in the Middle East'),
(260684, 25291, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(260685, 25291, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:41:14'),
(260686, 25291, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/stuck-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-the-uks-unexplained-wealth-orders-and-the-effect-in-the-middle-east/'),
(260687, 25291, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7940&amp;action=edit'),
(260688, 25291, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18');
INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`) VALUES
(260689, 25291, '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'),
(260690, 25291, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(260691, 25291, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(260692, 25292, 'PostID', '7940'),
(260693, 25292, 'PostTitle', 'Stuck between a rock and a hard place… : The UK’s Unexplained Wealth Orders and the effect in the Middle East'),
(260694, 25292, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(260695, 25292, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(260696, 25292, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:41:14'),
(260697, 25292, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/stuck-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-the-uks-unexplained-wealth-orders-and-the-effect-in-the-middle-east/'),
(260698, 25292, 'MetaID', '223314'),
(260699, 25292, 'MetaKey', 'content'),
(260700, 25292, 'MetaValueNew', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8002\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/17-1.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3567\" height=\"715\" /></p>\r\n</br><p>The 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.</p>\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</br><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</br><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</br><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</br><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</br><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</br><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 size-medium alignright\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-31-at-5.43.01-PM-242x300.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"242\" height=\"300\" /></br>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</br><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.'),
(260701, 25292, 'MetaValueOld', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8002\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/17-1.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3567\" height=\"715\" />\r\n</br>The 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.</p>\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</br><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</br><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</br><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</br><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</br><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</br><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 size-medium alignright\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-31-at-5.43.01-PM-242x300.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"242\" height=\"300\" /></br>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</br><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.'),
(260702, 25292, 'MetaLink', 'content'),
(260703, 25292, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7940&amp;action=edit');
INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`) VALUES
(260704, 25292, 'ReportText', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8002\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/17-1.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3567\" height=\"715\" />\r\n</br>The 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.</p>\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</br><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</br><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</br><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</br><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</br><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</br><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 size-medium alignright\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-31-at-5.43.01-PM-242x300.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"242\" height=\"300\" /></br>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</br><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.|<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8002\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/17-1.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3567\" height=\"715\" /></p>\r\n</br><p>The 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.</p>\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</br><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</br><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</br><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</br><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</br><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</br><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 size-medium alignright\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-31-at-5.43.01-PM-242x300.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"242\" height=\"300\" /></br>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</br><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.'),
(260705, 25292, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(260706, 25292, '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'),
(260707, 25292, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(260708, 25292, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(260709, 25293, 'PostID', '7940'),
(260710, 25293, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(260711, 25293, 'PostTitle', 'Stuck between a rock and a hard place… : The UK’s Unexplained Wealth Orders and the effect in the Middle East'),
(260712, 25293, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(260713, 25293, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:41:14'),
(260714, 25293, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/stuck-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-the-uks-unexplained-wealth-orders-and-the-effect-in-the-middle-east/'),
(260715, 25293, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7940&amp;action=edit'),
(260716, 25293, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(260717, 25293, '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'),
(260718, 25293, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(260719, 25293, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(260720, 25294, 'PostID', '7940'),
(260721, 25294, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(260722, 25294, 'PostTitle', 'Stuck between a rock and a hard place… : The UK’s Unexplained Wealth Orders and the effect in the Middle East'),
(260723, 25294, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(260724, 25294, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:41:14'),
(260725, 25294, 'PostUrl', 'https://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/stuck-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-the-uks-unexplained-wealth-orders-and-the-effect-in-the-middle-east/'),
(260726, 25294, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7940&amp;action=edit'),
(260727, 25294, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(260728, 25294, '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'),
(260729, 25294, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(260730, 25294, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(260731, 25295, 'PostID', '7957'),
(260732, 25295, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(260733, 25295, 'PostTitle', 'Catching the wave: New Data Protection Law in Bahrain'),
(260734, 25295, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(260735, 25295, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:45:44'),
(260736, 25295, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/catching-the-wave-new-data-protection-law-in-bahrain/'),
(260737, 25295, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7957&amp;action=edit'),
(260738, 25295, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(260739, 25295, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_2) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(260740, 25295, 'CurrentUserID', '1'),
(260741, 25295, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(260742, 25296, 'PostID', '7957'),
(260743, 25296, 'PostTitle', 'Catching the wave: New Data Protection Law in Bahrain'),
(260744, 25296, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(260745, 25296, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(260746, 25296, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:45:44'),
(260747, 25296, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/catching-the-wave-new-data-protection-law-in-bahrain/'),
(260748, 25296, 'MetaID', '224072'),
(260749, 25296, 'MetaKey', 'content'),
(260750, 25296, 'MetaValueNew', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-8044 alignnone\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/cvdfd.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"6000\" height=\"2401\" /></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Bahrain’s Law on the Protection of Personal Data was published on 19 July 2018, and will come into effect on 1 August 2019. The Law will require a variety of changes to the way businesses process personal data in Bahrain or about residents of Bahrain. Data protection has not been a high priority topic for most businesses in Bahrain, with the limited exception of international entities subject to data protection requirements in other jurisdictions in which they operate. While the publication of the new Law provides a considerable lead-in period within which entities subject to the Law will need to comply, the fact that the Law creates criminal offences means that compliance is all the more important and should be treated as a high priority.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Until now, and with one exception (namely, Qatar), none of the Gulf Cooperation Council member states had a modern, nationally applicable data protection law. Legal issues relating to privacy and data protection are typically analysed in terms of general, and ill-fitting, criminal provisions relating to the unauthorized disclosure of secrets, or – in appropriate circumstances - industry-specific obligations relating to healthcare or credit data, or telecommunications sector subscriber data.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law is generally composed of 60 articles divided into three broad sections or ‘titles’. These are:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Title 1: Processing Provisions – Including definitions and general rules for the legality of processing, controls of data processing and transfer, statements as well as the rights of the data holder.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Title 2: Data Protection Authority - Including provisions relating to the establishment of the regulator, and its rights and responsibilities.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Title 3: Accountability of the data manager (data controller) and data processor – Including provisions relating to accountability to the regulator, investigation procedures, civil and criminal liability, and penalties for violation.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In this article, we consider some key areas addressed in the Data Protection Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Application</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Bahrain’s Data Protection Law describes the legal protection of personal privacy as among the main constitutional rights of the person, and notes that it should be protected, particularly in the context of the increasing use of electronic/digital means for processing information.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law applies to:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Every individual residing normally in Bahrain or having a workplace in Bahrain, and every legal person (corporate) having a place of business in the Kingdom of Bahrain; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Every individual not residing normally in Bahrain or having a workplace in Bahrain, and every legal person (corporate) not having a place of business in the Kingdom of Bahrain, where such persons are processing data using means available in Bahrain, except where such processing means are solely for the purpose of passing data through Bahrain.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In this latter scenario, the legal person (corporate) is required to appoint an authorized representative in Bahrain, and notify the Authority of such appointment. This provision would appear to affect, for example, corporate customers of cloud service providers, where the customer is based outside Bahrain, and the services being provided to the customer are being provided from data centres located in Bahrain.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Criminal provisions</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law criminalizes a variety of acts that would, at most, be the subject of administrative penalties in data protection laws elsewhere. Penalties generally comprise up to one year in prison and/or a fine of between BHD1,000 and BHD20,000 (between about USD 2,600 to about USD 53,000) (or a fine only in the case of corporate entities). The following are examples of activities that attract criminal penalties under the Law:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">processing sensitive personal data in violation of the provision specifying requirements for processing sensitive personal data;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">transferring personal data outside Bahrain contrary to the provisions specifying requirements for transfers to jurisdictions that provide an adequate level of data protection, and associated exceptions;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">processing personal data without notifying the Authority in accordance with the provision that sets out the obligation to notify the Authority before commencing any data processing activities (except where certain exceptions apply), or failing to update such notification to the Authority;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Processing personal data contrary to the provision that requires prior authorization from the Authority before processing personal data in certain circumstances;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Providing false or misleading information to the Authority or to a data subject, or withholding relevant information from the Authority, or otherwise hindering the Authority’s work; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Disclosing any data or information accessed due to work, or using the same for own benefit or for the benefit of others unreasonably and in violation of the provisions of this law.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<img class=\"wp-image-8068 aligncenter\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/56.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"374\" height=\"249\" />\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Security considerations</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Generally, the security of processing provisions, and the confidentiality provisions, appear to be fairly standard.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Data controllers are required to apply technical and organizational measures capable of protecting personal data against unintentional or unauthorized destruction, accidental loss, unauthorized alteration, disclosure or access, or any other form of processing. The measures adopted need to be appropriate, bearing in mind the nature of the data in question and the risks associated with processing it. The Law also indicates that ‘state-of-the-art’ technological protection measures should be adopted, but this is tempered by reference to the costs arising from use of such technology.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Additionally, the Law contemplates the issuance of a regulation specifying requirements that technical and organisational measures must satisfy. It also provides scope for specific requirements to be prescribed in such regulations.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Data controllers are required to maintain documentation that reflects the technical and organizational measures adopted. This documentation must be available for viewing by the parties concerned (presumably, including data subjects), as well as the Authority, any data processors, and the data controller itself.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">With regard to processing by data processors, the Law requires data controllers to engage only data processors who provide sufficient guarantees regarding the application of technical and organisational measures. Importantly, there is an obligation on data controllers to take steps to verify compliance with such measures, and to enter into a written contract with the data processor requiring that the data processor shall only process data in accordance with the instructions of the data controller, and in accordance with the data controller’s requirements with regard to security and confidentiality.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There does not appear to be any specific obligation to notify the Authority in the event of a data breach incident. It is possible that this level of detail might be addressed in the regulations, or that the Authority is expected to address breaches only in the event that they become aware of them, and the circumstances indicate a breach of the obligation to use suitable technical and organizational security measures.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Data protection supervisor</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law contemplates a role of ‘Data Protection Supervisor’ (which is not a data protection officer) intended to act as an independent and impartial intermediary between the data controller and the Authority.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The data protection supervisor will help the data controller fulfil its rights and obligations, and coordinate between the data controller and the Authority. It will also be required to verify the data controller’s processing in compliance with the law, alert the data controller to any apparent non-compliance to enable the issue to be addressed, and alert the Authority where such non-compliance has not been addressed within a specified timeframe. The data protection supervisor will also be required to maintain a register of the data controller’s processing operations that the data controller must notify the Authority, and update the Authority of the same on a monthly basis. (If no data protection supervisor is appointed, then the data controller is required to do this itself.)</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The qualifications and requirements for registration as a data protection supervisor will be officially issued, and data protection supervisors will need to be registered on a register maintained by the Authority. The requirement to appoint a data protection supervisor is optional, although it may be made compulsory for specific categories of data controllers.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The concept of a data protection supervisor has the potential to result in a whole new industry in the Bahrain market. The regulations setting out the requirements for the registration of data protection supervisors may shed greater light on what is anticipated, in terms of who might be able to fulfil such roles. The most natural development may be for the role to be filled by consulting/audit firms with expertise in data protection related issues.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Bahrain’s new Data Protection Law will require a great deal of attention from businesses operating in Bahrain. Data protection has not been a high priority topic for most businesses in Bahrain, with the limited exception of international entities subject to data protection requirements in other jurisdictions in which they operate. While the publication of the new Law will result in some degree of a lead-in period within which entities subject to the Law will need to comply, the fact that the Law creates criminal offences means that compliance is all the more important and should be treated as a high priority.</p>');
