Document Type

Article

Publication Date

5-2026

First Page

183

Volume

32

Issue

2

Source Publication Abbreviation

UC Davis J. Int'l & Pol'y

Abstract

With the rise of globalization, international corruption has been linked to a host of economic and social ills, including inter-state conflict.  By 2021, the U.S. government had identified corruption for the first time as a national security threat that required a broader range of inter- and cross- governmental policy tools to address the identified scope of the problem.  This national security focus was reinforced with the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which has been seen as being facilitated by corrupt oligarchs.  To be sure, the U.S. had decades prior passed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits U.S. businesses from bribing foreign government officials for business advantages.  But it has only been more recently that the government has turned its attention more internationally to focus on addressing the other side of the equation—the corrupt conduct of foreign actors.  This shift has primarily come in the form of enacting the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act, which targets foreign government officials that receive bribes from U.S. businesses, and imposing sanctions on individuals and entities that are more broadly designated as engaging in or benefitting from corruption.

There are significant differences in how alleged violations to statutes are investigated and prosecuted from the process by which international actors are designated under U.S. sanctions programs.  These differences have implications for determining which approach is more likely to be effective in addressing corruption in particular circumstances.  This article conducts a comparative analysis of U.S. international anti-corruption statutes, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act, along with sanctions programs that include corruption as a basis to impose sanctions.  The article examines the international shift in recognizing corruption as a shared problem and the adoption of the anti-corruption measures to address the same.  The article compares the statutory requirements to impose criminal liability for corruption with the findings needed to designate individuals or entities under a sanctions program.  The article contends that the statutory measures vary from sanctions programs in enforcement standards, jurisdictional scope, and likelihood of influencing corrupt conduct.  Nonetheless, they share the similarities of being heavily reliant on effective corporate compliance programs to more generally address corruption across a broader range of actors.  They also work more effectively with international cooperation.

Download

Share

COinS