GIEK seeks to achieve this goal by means of providing information and by obtaining information and statements from exporters and, if necessary, applicants. Further, non-corruptive practises are a requirement in the conditions attached to the issuance of our guarantees.
GIEK will continue the work towards the development of a common understanding and joint processes between export credit agencies to ensure equal competitive conditions for Norwegian and foreign exporters. We see anti-corruption measures as a continuous process in which it is vital that all involved parties participate and understand that we all benefit by succeeding in what should be a common objective.
Background
In November 1997 the OECD passed its Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. The convention obliges member countries to make it a criminal offence in their own countries to bribe public servants and employees of international organisations in the buyer country. Section 128 of the Norwegian Penal Code was amended accordingly.
In December 2000 the OECD passed an Action Statement which required the export credit agencies to inform about the legal consequences of corruption.
In 2003 the Norwegian Penal Code was significantly tightened up with respect to corruption in the private sector, by including both active and passive corruption as well as so called trading in influence. Trading in influence occurs when a person is, or claims to be, able to influence another’s execution of position or duties (to influence agents) and attempts to exploit this position by demanding or receiving improper benefits (passive trading in influence). A further change was that the maximum sentence for serious violations was increased to 10 years imprisonment.
The term 'corruption' is used below to mean violation of section 276 a–c of the Penal Code.
A new and more stringent Action Statement was passed by the OECD in May 2006 and forms the basis of GIEK’s guidelines. Norwegian legislation goes further than the OECD in that it covers both trading in influence and corruption in the private sector.
GIEK's anti-corruption policy was passed in September 2006.
Guidelines for GIEK's corruption prevention work
The guidelines should be practised within the framework of Norwegian legislation and in accordance with the OECD’s Action Statement on Bribery and Officially Supported Export Credits.
GIEK will inform of any criminal and civil law consequences of corruption, including section 276 a-c of the Penal Code. GIEK will encourage exporters, and if necessary applicants, to implement systems to counteract corruption.
GIEK will require exporters, and if necessary applicants, to declare that neither they nor anyone acting on their behalf in relation to the transaction have been or will be involved in corruption. Guarantees will not be confirmed until the exporter, and if needed the applicant, have provided such declarations.
Exporters and applicants will advise if there are agents or other individuals or companies of whom they are aware who are acting in the transaction and if so what their duties are and what payment they receive. In the event that commission or other remuneration will be paid through channels other than directly from buyer to seller, the applicant must give a declaration stating that the purpose of such payment is to cover relevant services and that such remuneration does not include any payment for services which would be considered as corruption under section 276 a-c of the Penal Code.
GIEK will ask exporters and applicants to confirm that neither they nor anyone acting on their behalf in the transaction are on the World Bank or the Regional Development Banks list of enterprises that are banned due to corruption
GIEK will require information as to whether exporters, applicants or anyone acting on their behalf in the transaction,
a) are being prosecuted for corruption or
b) have been convicted of corruption by an international court of law in the last 5 years or
c) have had measures imposed by national administrations in the last 5 years due to corruption.
GIEK will carry out further investigations if points 3, 4 or 5 or other aspects of the case give grounds for suspicion of corruption. Prior to such investigations, lender(s) and any guarantor(s) will be informed if feasible.
GIEK will verify whether internal preventive measures (such as relocation of employees who have been involved in corruption, implementation of internal control systems, implementation and publication of the results of anti-corruption audits) have been implemented, enforced and documented in companies which have been convicted/have been subject to impositions as described in points 5 b and c above.
If reasons for suspicion of corruption arise prior to the issuance of an offer from GIEK, GIEK will initiate necessary and appropriate measures. These may for example include suspension of the application process while an extended investigation takes place. If the extended investigation concludes that reasonable grounds for suspicion of corruption exist, the application will be rejected.
If reasons for suspicion of corruption arise after an offer or policy has been issued or compensation has been paid in whole or in part under the guarantee, GIEK will initiate necessary and appropriate measures, including an extended investigation of the case; lender(s) and guarantor(s) will be informed if feasible and relevant measures will be considered. Such measures might include no further draw downs under the loan, no payment of compensation or a demand for repayment of any compensation which has been paid.
If the extended investigation concludes that reasonable grounds for suspicion of corruption exist, GIEK may consider it necessary or appropriate to inform the Ministry of Trade and Industry or to report the case to the National Authority for Investigation and Prosecution of Economic and Environmental Crime.
