Skip to content
In early February 2025, the White House issued an Executive Order pausing enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) pending a 180-day review. Following that announcement, the US skipped for the first time a meeting of the anti-bribery working group of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
But notwithstanding these developments, legal experts have widely cautioned corporations against dismantling their compliance infrastructure. In fact, while there are fears about the impact of the FCPA pause, others argue that firms are unlikely to change their behavior, for reasons including: the significant resources already invested in compliance; concerns about enforcement actions by a future administration because the FCPA has a five-year statute of limitations; and an understanding that engaging in bribery overseas is a long-run losing proposition for US and other Western firms.
In addition to those considerations, companies should be aware of a new multilateral anti-corruption mechanism that could fill the gap vacated by the US: the International Anti-Corruption Prosecutorial Taskforce. The United Kingdom (UK), France and Switzerland created the Taskforce in London on March 20, 2025, affirming “their shared commitment to tackling international bribery and corruption.” According to the founding statement, the UK’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO), France’s Parquet National Financier (PNF) and the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG) will not only cooperate on investigations but invite other “like-minded agencies” to join the Taskforce, potentially expanding its global reach. The founding statement also lays out the basic structure of the Taskforce, to include a Leaders’ Group focused on “insight and strategy,” and a Working Group for “proposals for co-operation on cases.”
At the launch of the Taskforce, Jean-François Bohnert, Head of the PNF, noted that this effort builds on “ten years of operational cooperation.” However, prior such collaborations were ad hoc and focused on individual cases. Additionally, Joint Investigation Teams have been formed in the past to harmonize investigations and prosecutions among both European Union members and non-members, but they were designed for “a specific purpose and for a limited period.” In forming the Taskforce as a permanent mechanism, by contrast, the three countries pledged to strengthen those “existing ties,” and not only engage in joint case work, but ensure the long-run exchange of best practices and expertise.
The law firm Sidley Austin LLP provides a summary of the three countries’ main laws prohibiting foreign bribery, including what entities fall under the jurisdiction of such laws. These are, for France, the Sapin II and French Criminal Code; for Switzerland the Swiss Criminal Code; and for the UK the 2010 Bribery Act and the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act. This Global Legal Insights Guide offers overviews of the anti-corruption legislation of Switzerland, France and the UK. More in-depth resources for companies are the UK’s Bribery Act Guidance; the French Anti-Corruption Agency’s Guidelines, offered in English translation here; and Switzerland’s Information for Swiss businesses operating abroad.
Critically, all three countries’ laws envision extraterritoriality, which should be of particular note to multinationals regardless of where they are domiciled. All three countries’ laws also prohibit both the payment of, and demand for bribes, as well as establishing that the existence of robust compliance programs reduces the risk of criminal liability. In this way, the three countries’ collaborative efforts will very much mirror the FCPA. For instance, France’s Sapin II applies to “companies based in or operating in France that employ at least 500 persons or companies within a group of companies that employs at least 500 persons worldwide and whose parent company is located in France.” The relevant Swiss law applies to “acts committed in Switzerland, by a Swiss citizen, or with a sufficient link to or effect on Swiss territory.”
The UK Bribery Act is the most robust from this point of view. It covers companies with a “close connection to the UK, regardless of where the crime was committed” and with “a business presence in the UK regardless of being incorporated in the UK.” As the law firm Morgan Lewis notes, companies should also be aware of the potential applicability of the 2002 Proceeds of Crime Act, which allows for the freezing and confiscation of criminally-derived assets. The firm further notes that UK SFO has broad investigatory powers which could be brought to bear for the Taskforce.
In fact, as Nick Ephgrave, Director of the SFO stated at the Taskforce kick-off, in “[reaffirming] our individual and collective commitment to tackling the pernicious threat of international bribery and corruption,” the participating countries plan to “make use of every power and partnership available.” For instance, the SFO released in early April 2025 its Business Plan 2025-26, which lays out the intention to “use the new ‘failure to prevent fraud’ offence, part of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, which comes into force in September,” as well as “refreshed corporate guidance for engaging with the SFO and advancing plans for a whistleblower incentivisation [sic] scheme.”
The Swiss have also shown a recent inclination to step up their anti-corruption efforts. For instance, in August 2024, the Swiss completed a joint investigation with the Dutch into Glencore, which resulted in a $152 million fine. Then, in early December 2024 a trial kicked off that marked the first instance of Switzerland’s top criminal court ruling on a firm’s liability for foreign bribery. Senior executives at commodities trader Trafigura were alleged to have made payments of over $5 million to win oil and shipping contracts in Angola between 2009 and 2011. Prosecutors argued that Trafigura failed to take reasonable measures to prevent the bribes. In late January 2025, the court sentenced the company’s former COO to 32 months in jail and fined the company the equivalent of $148 million.
To be sure, it remains to be seen how the work of the Taskforce will play out in practice, as it is still a new undertaking. Moreover, previous joint investigations among the main players mobilized the vast resources and force of the US Government. But in the interim, this is another reason for companies to continue to ensure that their compliance programs are robust, their corporate governance is strong, and their third-party risk assessment is sound.
