Waldo the wording you now provide are not the legal commentary and Annex 1 I provided. The legal commentary and Annex 1 were not called guidelines because they were not guidelines.
hey brainiac! What do you think the Convention is based upon?
You referring to those guidelines as "directives" is one of the stoopider statements you've made in a while. Again, the very fact the OECD raised concerns (over 2 decades now, starting in 1999) over Canada's conviction record for foreign bribery shows the OECD has no enforcement and/or sanction ability against counties it presumes to "raise concerns with". And you called them "directives"! Oh my!
but hey now - let's see you weasel out from the following - which raises your failure bar well beyond the nonsense you earlier tried to peddle when you stated DPAs were exceptionally rare in the U.S.. Per the OECD's own analysis/study just released weeks ago now:, "
Of the 890 cases concluded under the Anti-Bribery Convention to date, close to 80% have been through non-trial resolutions."
Home
Contact
Login
Register