In addition, Bill S-14, enacted and effective as of 19 June 2013, adds a corresponding "books and records" offence to the CFPOA.
Therefore, generally speaking, a corporation may be liable for corrupt practices under the CFPOA both where the corporation provides, offers to provide, or agrees to provide something of value to a foreign public official to induce that official to use the her authority or influence to obtain or retain a business advantage for the corporation; and where the corporation engages in accounting practices designed to disguise such corrupt activity.
Corporate liability under the CFPOA and Criminal Code Sections 22.
for example, pled guilty to a violation of the CFPOA over a series of illicit consulting agreements executed by the company at the direction of its former management in pursuit of oil and gas production sharing contracts in Chad.
2(c) also poses a number of "complex organizational questions" when paired with a contravention of the CFPOA committed by a non-senior officer or remote corporation representative.
A primary response by Canadian corporations to CFPOA enforcement efforts has been the adoption of anti-corruption policies and procedures.
On the one hand, amendments to the jurisdictional reach of the CFPOA, effected by Bill S-14 in June of 2013, create a potentially important distinction among the corrupt practices for which Canadian target entities may be held liable.
The situation is no different in the context of CFPOA liability.
Importantly, this additional section has the effect of making Canadian corporations that engage in corrupt practices involving foreign public officials subject to the CFPOA regardless of whether such activities take place inside or outside Canada, and based simply on the fact that the corporation is organized under federal or provincial statute.
122) To this end, while prior to Bill S-14's passage the CFPOA itself did not directly address issues relating to extraterritorial jurisdiction, the official guide to the CFPOA explained that a "real and substantial link" between the offence and Canada would be required in order for Canadian courts to assume jurisdiction over the matter.
This now-outdated explanation of the jurisdictional limits of the CFPOA was informed primarily by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R v.
In particular, while it can be assumed without further analysis that corrupt practices engaged in by the Canadian target after June 13, 2013 would attract CFPOA liability regardless of where the corrupt behaviour occurred, the same assumption is not automatically warranted for corrupt practices the target engaged in at an earlier date.