International Cooperation and Negotiated Settlements for Transnational Bribery: A Study of the Odebrecht Case

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW Revista Direito GV Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1590/2317-6172202131
Raquel de Mattos Pimenta, Otavio Venturini
{"title":"International Cooperation and Negotiated Settlements for Transnational Bribery: A Study of the Odebrecht Case","authors":"Raquel de Mattos Pimenta, Otavio Venturini","doi":"10.1590/2317-6172202131","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Transnational regulation of bribery involves several increasingly complex forms of cooperation among enforcement authorities. International investigative cooperation allows a foreign authority to assist another on criminal and/or civil investigations, through requests of mutual legal assistance, rogatory letters, as well as joint investigative teams. Sanction-based cooperation helps different authorities to transfer or extradite persons and recover proceeds of corruption to the victims. More recently, there has been a rise in cooperation in negotiated settlements with the accused. Settlement cooperation may entail joint resolutions or the coordination of settlement clauses. This paper focuses on how these three modes of cooperation intersect in cases with successive negotiated settlements. We use the Odebrecht case settlements to unpack the relation between investigative, sanction-based, and settlement cooperation in three case studies: the joint resolutions between the company and Brazil, Switzerland, and the United States, as well as two local agreements with the Dominican Republic and with Peru. We evidence how these modes of cooperation can reinforce or undermine one another. Beyond illustrating different cooperation dynamics, we also explore the role of sequencing. The existence of a previous joint resolution affects the developments of the subsequent agreements, but in different ways from those previously mapped by the literature.","PeriodicalId":43663,"journal":{"name":"Revista Direito GV","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Direito GV","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-6172202131","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract Transnational regulation of bribery involves several increasingly complex forms of cooperation among enforcement authorities. International investigative cooperation allows a foreign authority to assist another on criminal and/or civil investigations, through requests of mutual legal assistance, rogatory letters, as well as joint investigative teams. Sanction-based cooperation helps different authorities to transfer or extradite persons and recover proceeds of corruption to the victims. More recently, there has been a rise in cooperation in negotiated settlements with the accused. Settlement cooperation may entail joint resolutions or the coordination of settlement clauses. This paper focuses on how these three modes of cooperation intersect in cases with successive negotiated settlements. We use the Odebrecht case settlements to unpack the relation between investigative, sanction-based, and settlement cooperation in three case studies: the joint resolutions between the company and Brazil, Switzerland, and the United States, as well as two local agreements with the Dominican Republic and with Peru. We evidence how these modes of cooperation can reinforce or undermine one another. Beyond illustrating different cooperation dynamics, we also explore the role of sequencing. The existence of a previous joint resolution affects the developments of the subsequent agreements, but in different ways from those previously mapped by the literature.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
跨国贿赂的国际合作与协商解决——以Odebrecht案为例
跨国贿赂监管涉及执法机关之间几种日益复杂的合作形式。国际调查合作允许外国当局通过请求相互法律协助、调查函以及联合调查小组协助另一个当局进行刑事和(或)民事调查。基于制裁的合作有助于不同当局转移或引渡人员,并向受害者追回腐败所得。最近,在与被告谈判和解方面的合作有所增加。和解合作可以是共同决议,也可以是协调和解条款。本文关注的是这三种合作模式在连续协商解决的情况下是如何交叉的。我们利用Odebrecht案的和解协议,在三个案例研究中揭示了调查合作、基于制裁的合作和和解合作之间的关系:该公司与巴西、瑞士和美国之间的联合决议,以及与多米尼加共和国和秘鲁之间的两个地方协议。我们证明了这些合作模式是如何相互加强或相互破坏的。除了说明不同的合作动力,我们也探讨了排序的作用。以前的一项联合决议的存在影响到后来各项协定的发展,但影响的方式不同于以前文献所描绘的方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
25.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
21 weeks
期刊最新文献
Beyond the Convergence-Divergence Divide: Comparing Banking Regulation in Latin America Social Change and Law: A Matter for Discussion. Study of the First Decision in Favor of Same-Sex Couples by the Constitutional Court of Colombia Opening the World Court to State and Non-State Actors in Contentious Cases: Reality or Utopia? Activismo o garantismo en el proceso contencioso administrativo colombiano Derechos humanos en acción: posibilidades y dificultades para penetrar en el mundo financiero
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1