Military


Netherlands - Corruption

Anti-bribery legislation to implement the 1997 OECD Anti-Bribery Convention (ABC) became effective in 2001. The anti-bribery law reconciles the language of the ABC with the EU Fraud Directive and the Council of Europe Convention on Fraud. It makes corruption by Dutch businessmen in landing foreign contracts a penal offense, and bribes are no longer deductible for corporate tax purposes. At a national level, the Ministries of the Interior and Kingdom Relations as well as Security and Justice have taken steps to sharpen regulations to combat bribery in public procurement and in the issuance of permits and subsidies. Most companies have internal controls and/or codes of conduct that prohibit bribery. The Netherlands signed and ratified the UN Convention against Corruption and is party to the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. NGO Transparency International ranked the Netherlands seventh on its 2011 Corruption Perception Index.

The laws provide criminal penalties for official corruption, and the government generally implemented the laws effectively. There were isolated reports of government corruption during 2011. The government pursued an active anticorruption policy coordinated by the Internal Affairs Ministry’s Bureau for Promotion of Integrity of the Public Sector. The National Criminal Investigation Service coordinated investigations under the supervision of the national prosecutor for corruption. There are no laws requiring financial disclosure; however, for most senior positions, every organization has its own regulations to avoid conflicts of interest.

The law provides for public access to government information, and authorities generally respected that right. When authorities denied information requests, they provided reasons based on the law. Those seeking information could appeal any refusal to the regular courts. Disputes occasionally arose in court over the scope of the government’s right to withhold information in the public interest.

Following public allegations of corruption in Curacao, a special Dutch investigator produced a report suggesting the possible involvement of several cabinet members in corrupt activities. The Curacao government refused to pursue a Dutch request for further investigation into these allegations and asserted that the Dutch investigator’s report included unfounded accusations and “useless information.” This response contributed to heightened concern among many citizens about the quality of governance. The kingdom’s government retains oversight over some areas, including aspects of the judiciary (such as the Supreme Court), and “kingdom matters,” including human rights, the rule of law, and good governance. However, the Dutch see intervention as a last resort, while the Curacao government suggested that the Dutch right to intervene should be drastically changed in ways that would both simplify and minimize outside oversight.

While the number of prosecutions in foreign bribery cases is on the rise worldwide, the Netherlands has been only “moderately” successful in bringing corporations and individuals to account according to a new report by the anti-corruption NGO Transparency International. Titled “Exporting Corruption?", the report released 06 September 2012 tracked the progress of the 39 countries signed up to the 1997 OECD Anti-Bribery Convention to fight global corruption.

While the US, Germany and even Italy are among the world’s most stringent enforcers in curbing the foreign bribes that often lead to better contracts or shortcuts around local regulations, the Netherlands is grouped with Argentina, Japan and France as needing to get tougher in the fight against corporate corruption. Of the nine foreign bribery cases in the Netherlands, says the report, there have been no sanctions handed down to any individuals or companies. Four investigations are still pending, including one reportedly involving illegal payments in Jamaica by Trafi gura Beheer BV, the world’s largest independent oil trader.

Dutch authorities also failed to respond on time to a 2008 Polish request to investigate electronics giant Philips, which led to the dismissal of Poland’s bribery case against the company. Transparency International is calling for increased sanctions, more cooperation between police and financial investigators and whistleblower protection in the Netherlands.





NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list