For years, these pages have highlighted how the OECD and other so-called “civil society” organizations and groups have seemingly prioritized the quantity of bribery enforcement actions (regardless of the enforcement theories and/or the resolution vehicles used) over the quality of enforcement actions.
Implicit in this prioritization is that quality enforcement actions (for instance those subjected to judicial scrutiny) might result in dismissal of charges and dismissal of charges must be bad because – after all – the charges were for bribery.
As highlighted in this recent post, in its Phase 4 report on Italy’s Implementation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, the OECD went from implicit to explicit and specifically called out judicial scrutiny in Italy of bribery cases because it “yielded a high number of dismissals.” In doing so, the reputation of the OECD took another hit.
Recently a collection of “civil society” groups joined the frayed calling on the U.S. to “repair the damage Italy has done to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.”
The sophomoric letter from the “civil society” groups to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland states in pertinent part: