by Craig Fagan · Published by Transparency International
Settlements can provide an important channel to hold companies to account for wrongdoings and resolve foreign bribery and other cases without resorting to a full trial (civil or criminal), or contested administrative proceeding.
Yet, their deterrent effect can be questionable if they are not transparent, and do not provide effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions and if there is no judicial process. Finally, there should be reparations for the victims of the offence.
Related publications
Collective Action, Business Integrity Ethics and Compliance
Anti-corruption Collective Action in the G20/B20 process: Charting progress 2020–2024
Collective Action, Business Integrity Ethics and Compliance
Collective Action in practice: a game-changer for business integrity
Collective Action, Business Integrity Ethics and Compliance
Working Paper 56: Anti-corruption Collective Action: A typology for a new era
Collective Action, Business Integrity Ethics and Compliance
Companies’ assessments of anti-corruption compliance
Collective Action, Business Integrity Ethics and Compliance
Putting business integrity on the global agenda: Report from the 5th International Collective Action Conference
Collective Action, Prevention Research and Innovation, Corruption Prevention and Public Governance
Working Paper 60: Understanding the enemy: Insights from corrupt networks to improve anti-corruption Collective Action initiatives
Asset Recovery and Enforcement, Collective Action
Policy Brief 11: Fighting corruption in West African coastal states: how Collective Action can help
Prevention Research and Innovation, Corruption Prevention and Public Governance
The Evolution of Corruption and Crimes at Kapitan Andreevo Border Checkpoint: The Impact of EU Accession
Prevention Research and Innovation, Corruption Prevention and Public Governance
Conceptualizing the evolution of corruption: an empirical analysis from Italy
Corruption Prevention and Public Governance