The OECD Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions sharply criticises Türkiye’s implementation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention in a new assessment. Since 2000 when Türkiye joined the Convention, the Working Group has, through its targeted evaluation process, repeatedly identified serious shortcomings in the country’s implementation of the Convention. Major areas of concern include:
- Legislative deficiencies in corporate liability, such as false accounting, successor liability, confiscation, and precondition of a natural person conviction
- Inability to fine individuals for foreign bribery
- Ineffective detection of foreign bribery allegations, including a lack of whistleblower protection in the private and public sectors
- No meaningful efforts to investigate and prosecute actual foreign bribery allegations
- Absence of strategy to combat foreign bribery
As a result, the Working Group on Bribery takes the exceptional step of warning that Türkiye’s failure to implement key aspects of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention may necessitate increased due diligence over Turkish companies by their commercial partners, multilateral development banks, Working Group member countries, and other jurisdictions.
More information on the due diligence warning can be found in the Fact Sheet below.
For further information, journalists are invited to contact the OECD Media Office.
Find out more about Türkiye’s implementation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention and the OECD’s work on fighting foreign bribery on the OECD website.
Fact Sheet on Due Diligence Warning
What is the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention?
The Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (OECD Anti-Bribery Convention) was signed on 17 December 1997 and establishes legally binding obligations to criminalise bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions. It also provides for a host of related obligations on matters ranging from sanctions and statute of limitations to mutual legal assistance. It is the first and only legally binding international anti-corruption instrument focused on the “supply side” of bribery transactions. It entered into force on 15 February 1999. There are currently 46 Parties to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, including 38 OECD Member countries.
What is the Working Group on Bribery?
Since 1994, the OECD Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions (WGB) has led global efforts to fight bribery of foreign public officials in international business. The WGB is composed of the countries that are Parties to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. The WGB is responsible for monitoring the Parties’ implementation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention and related legal instruments, including the 2021 Recommendation on Further Combating Bribery of Foreign Bribery in International Business Transactions (2021 OECD Anti-Bribery Recommendation).
Upon joining the WGB, the Parties must undergo successive phases of monitoring through the WGB’s rigorous peer-review monitoring system to ensure full implementation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention and related legal instruments. In each monitoring phase, the Parties review each other as peers.
To facilitate each Party’s review, the WGB forms evaluation teams composed of lead examiners—experts appointed by two different Parties—and OECD Secretariat members. The WGB deliberates and adopts its evaluation reports on a “consensus minus one” basis. As a result, the evaluated Party can provide its views and opinions on the report, but it cannot prevent the report’s adoption by the WGB and its publication on the OECD website. In addition to promoting full implementation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, the WGB’s monitoring and other activities also provide the Parties with the opportunity to consult with each other on difficulties encountered in implementation and to share good practices. Each country’s progress in implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention may differ depending on elements such as the timing of accession to the Convention.
When can the WGB issue a public due diligence warning?
In cases where there is a continued failure to adequately implement the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention after any WGB evaluation or follow-up report, the WGB may consider applying any appropriate measures. The WGB Phase 4 Monitoring Guide sets forth a non-exhaustive list of possible measures that the WGB may consider applying in any relevant monitoring phase. Among these measures, the WGB may issue a public due diligence warning (DDW) in accordance with the principle of functional equivalence. The public DDW is a public statement advising that the evaluated Party’s inadequate implementation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention or related legal instruments may justify enhanced due diligence on companies from that country.
What is the purpose of the public DDW?
The WGB can issue a public DDW in the event of a Party’s failure to adequately implement the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention or related instruments in view of lack of serious progress towards rectifying the underlying issues.1 As a result, other counterparties that deal with, or are considering dealing with, companies from the evaluated Party may consider whether enhanced due diligence may be justified.
The decision to issue a public DDW is not based on a ranking or comparison of one Party against the other Parties to the Convention but rather on the specific context of each Party and its stage in the WGB’s evaluation process. When a public DDW is issued, the WGB will describe the relevant context and factors that prompted the issuance of the public DDW in a public statement.
What are the possible next steps after a public DDW is issued?
A public DDW remains in effect until the WGB determines that the evaluated country has effectively addressed the issue or issues that prompted the WGB to make the public DDW. In addition, the WGB will continue to follow up on the evaluated country’s progress and may decide to apply other measures as appropriate in light of the circumstances to further facilitate the evaluated country’s implementation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.
Once the WGB decides that a public DDW is no longer necessary, it will issue a new statement, or add an addendum to the original statement, to explain why the public DDW has been rescinded.
Working with over 100 countries, the OECD is a global policy forum that promotes policies to preserve individual liberty and improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world.