How to deal with corruption in transitional and developing economies. A Vietnamese case study
| Pages | 220-228 |
| Published date | 17 July 2009 |
| Date | 17 July 2009 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/13590790910971775 |
| Author | Yasunobu Sato |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
How to deal with corruption
in transitional and developing
economies
A Vietnamese case study
Yasunobu Sato
The Graduate School of Arts and Science, The University of Tokyo,
Tokyo, Japan
Abstract
Purpose – Thepurpose of this paperis to propose alternatedispute resolution(ADR) as a possible toolto
prevent corruption.
Design/methodology/approach – After the literature reviews on theory of corruption, the Pacific
ConsultantsInternational (PCI) case of theJapanese prosecution is examinedas a case study of Vietnam,
based on some empiricalresearch.
Findings – The PCI executives were indicted and sentenced guilty on all counts and the Japanese
Government has frozen Yen-loan until the Vietnamese Government prosecutes the Vietnamese official.
Research limitations/implications – This would be a tip of the iceberg. It would be difficult to
find all the details of corruption at practice.
Practical implications – For enhancing transparency in such informal practice, if it is inevitable,a
specialdispute processingpanel shouldbe established as a Japaneseand Vietnamesejoint venture as ADR.
Originality/value – This is the first major case in which the Japanese Government, which was
internationally criticised for its inaction despite adopting the international anti-corruption regime, took
action against the Japanese official development assistance-related bribing case in Ho Chi Minh City.
Keywords Corruption, Vietnam,Dispute resolutions, Businessdevelopment, Development agencies
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction: how to define “corruption”
There is no clear definition under the UN Convention against Corruption adopted on
October31, 2003, which entered intoforce on December 14, 2005. As of September25, 2008,
140 countries have become signatories to it and 124 have ratified it (www.unodc.org/
unodc/en/treaties/CAC/signatories.html). Japan signed it on December 9, 2003 while
Vietnam signed it on December 10, 2003, but neitherhas ratified it.
The OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in
InternationalBusiness Transactionsof November 21, 1997 entered into forceon February
15, 1999.To ratify the convention,Japan amended the Unfair CompetitionPrevention Law
on September18, 1998. The 2004 amendment, which enteredinto force on January 1, 2005,
introducednationality jurisdictionand thus any Japanese nationalscommitting this crime
even outside Japanare to be punished in Japan (www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/59/33652892.
pdf). Nevertheless, Japan was criticized by the OECD working group on bribery for not
having beenmore proactive in investigatingand prosecuting foreignbribery cases (www.
oecd.org/document/35/0,3343,en_2649_37447_37020515_1_1_1_1,00.html), citing thatno
significant case hadyet been reported.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1359-0790.htm
JFC
16,3
220
Journal of Financial Crime
Vol. 16 No. 3, 2009
pp. 220-228
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1359-0790
DOI 10.1108/13590790910971775
To continue reading
Request your trial