Instrumentos de resolução negociada da corrupção empresarial no Brasil e as Recomendações da OCDE

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36428/revistadacgu.v16i30.712

Keywords:

corporate corruption, negotiated settlement, OECD, leniency agreements, civil non-prosecution agreements

Abstract

This paper explores to what extent the regulation and use of negotiated instruments for resolving cases of corporate corruption in Brazil (leniency agreements and civil non-prosecution agreements) adopt or depart from the parameters of the OECD Convention on Bribery in Commercial Transactions Transnationals, from 1997, and specifically, the specific recommendations on the subject, published in 2021. On the one hand, the literature identifies the transnational diffusion of the OECD's anti-corruption parameters through the peer review mechanism, but there are still few specific studies on the dissemination of negotiated resolutions. On the other hand, there are descriptions of the rules and functioning of these instruments at the domestic level, but without systematically contrasting them with the new OECD recommendations. The article fills these gaps by building categories of analysis derived from the Convention and its associated recommendations to critically evaluate the implementation of leniency agreements and civil non-prosecution agreements, comparing them with each other. In the future, such categories can be used for critical analyses of the transnational diffusion of negotiated resolutions and their relationship with OECD peer review processes, as well as to improve comparative studies on the domestic implementation of negotiated resolutions by signatory countries to the Convention.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

  • Thiago Jabor Pinheiro, Escola de Direito de São Paulo da Fundação Getúlio Vargas (FGV Direito SP)

    Doutorando em Direito e Desenvolvimento pela Escola de Direito de São Paulo - Fundação Getúlio Vargas. Sócio da área de Compliance e Ética Corporativa do escritório Mattos Fillho, Veiga Filho, Marrey Jr e Quiroga Advogados. Mestre em Direito (LL.M.) pela Harvard Law School (2010), Mestre em Direito, Estado e Constituição (2009) e Bacharel em Direito (2006) pela Universidade de Brasília. É membro do Comitê Anticorrupção da International Bar Association (IBA).

  • Raquel de Mattos Pimenta, Escola de Direito de São Paulo da Fundação Getúlio Vargas (FGV Direito SP)

    Professora da Escola de Direito de São Paulo da Fundação Getúlio Vargas (FGV Direito SP). Co-coordenadora do Núcleo de Direito e Economia Política (NUDEP) na mesma instituição. Conselheira do Conselho de Transparência, Integridade e Combate à Corrupção (CTICC) da Controladoria-Geral da União (CGU). É doutora e mestre em Direito Econômico na Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de São Paulo (FD-USP). Realizou estágio doutoral na Yale Law School com bolsa Fulbright e foi pesquisadora visitante na Georgetown University Law Center. Bacharel em Direito pela USP.

References

BRASIL. (2022). Presidência da República, Decreto nº 11.129 de11 de julho de 2022.

BRASIL (2021) Presidência da República, Advocacia-Geral da União, Portaria Normativa nº 18 de 16 de Julho de 2021.

BRASIL. (2021b). Supremo Tribunal Federal, Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade 7043.

BRASIL. (2020). Ministério Público Federal, 5a Câmara de Coordenação e Revisão, Orientação nº 10/20, da 5ª CCR do MPF.

BRASIL (2020b). Acordo de Cooperação Técnica em Matéria de Combate à Corrupção no Brasil firmado em 6 de agosto de 2020.

BRASIL (2018). Ministério da Transparência e Controladoria-Geral da União e Advocacia-Geral da União, Instrução Normativa n.2 de 16 de maio de 2018.

BRASIL (2018b). Tribunal de Contas da União, Instrução Normativa n. 83 de 12 de dezembro de 2018.

BRASIL. (2017) Ministério Público Federal, 5a Câmara de Coordenação e Revisão, Orientação no 07/2017

BRASIL (2015), Tribunal de Contas da União, Instrução Normativa n. 74 de 11 de Fevereiro de 2015

Coffee, J. (2020). Corporate Crime and Punishment: The Crisis of Underenforcement. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Davis, K. E. (2019). Between Impunity and Imperialism: The Regulation of Transnational Bribery. Oxford University Press.

Fremantle, A., & Katz, S. (1989). The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Amendments of 1988. The International Lawyer, 23(3), 755.

Ivory, R., & Søreide, T. (2020). The International Endorsement of Corporate Settlements in Foreign Bribery Cases. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 69(4), 945–978. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589320000329

Garrett, B. (2011). Globalized Corporate Prosecutions. Virginia Law Review, 97(8), 1775–1875.

Oduor, J. A., Fernando, F. M. U., Flah, A., Gottwald, D., Hauch, J. M., Mathias, M., Park, J. W., & Stolpe, O. (2014). Left out of the bargain: Settlements in foreign bribery cases and implications for asset recovery. The World Bank.

OECD. (2021) Recommendation of the Council for Further Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.

OECD. (2019). Resolving Foreign Bribery Cases With Non-Trial Resolutions: Settlements and Non-Trial Agreements by Parties to the Anti-Bribery Convention. www.oecd.org/corruption/Resolving-Foreign-Bribery-Cases-with-Non-Trial-Resolutions.htm

OECD. (2017). Brazil: Follow-up to the Phase 3 Report and Recommendations.

OECD. (2010) United States Phase 3 Report On Implementing The Oecd Anti-Bribery Convention.

OECD. (2009). Recommendation of the Council for Further Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions

OECD. (2007). Brazil: Phase 2 Report On The Application Of The Convention On Combating Bribery Of Foreign Public Officials In International Business Transactions And The 1997 Recommendation On Combating Bribery In International Business Transactions

OECD. (2005). United States: Phase 2 Follow-Up Report On The Implementation Of The Phase 2 Recommendations On The Application Of The Convention And The 1997 Recommendation On Combating Bribery Of Foreign Public Officials In International Business Transactions

OECD. (2004) Brazil Phase 1 Review Of Implementation Of The Convention And 1997 Recommendation

OECD (2002). United States: Phase 2, Report On Application Of The Convention On Combating Bribery Of Foreign Public Officials In International Business Transactions And The 1997 Recommendation On Combatting Bribery In International Business Transactions.

OECD. (1999). United States, Review Of Implementation Of The Convention And 1997 Recommendation.

Prado, M. M., & Cornelius, E. (2020). Multiplicidade Institucional e a Luta Contra a Corrupção: Uma Agenda de Pesquisa para a Rede de Accountability Brasileira. Revista Direito GV, 16(3).

Prado, M.M, & Pimenta, R. de M. (2021). Systemic corruption and institutional multiplicity: Brazilian examples of a complex relationship. University of Toronto Law Journal, 71(supplement 1), 74–102.

Pieth, M. (2020). Negotiating settlements in a broader law enforcement context. In T. Søreide & A. Makinwa (Eds.), Negotiated Settlements in Bribery Cases: A Principled Approach (pp. 19–24). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Pimenta, R. de M. (2020). A Construção dos Acordos de Leniência da Lei Anticorrupção (1st ed.). Blucher.

Pimenta, R. de M., & Venturini, O. (2021). International Cooperation and Negotiated Settlements for Transnational Bribery: A Study of the Odebrecht Case. Revista Direito GV, 17. https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-6172202131

Rose, C. (2015). International anti-corruption norms: Their creation and influence on domestic legal systems (1. ed). Oxford Univ. Press.

Spahn, E. K. (2013). Implementing Global anti-Bribery Norms: From the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to the OECD anti-Bribery Convention to the U.N. Convention against Corruption. Indiana International & Comparative Law Review, 23(1), 1–33.

Sanchez-Badin, M. R., & Sanchez-Badin, A. (2019). Anticorruption in Brazil: From Transnational Legal Order to Disorder. AJIL Unbound, 113, 326–330.

Downloads

Published

2025-05-28

Issue

Vol. 16 No. 30 (2024): Revista da CGU, 30,jul-dez/2024

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Revista da CGU

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The Revista da CGU follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY), which allows the use and sharing of published works with mandatory indication of authors and sources. Contents published until 2019 have generic permission for use and sharing with mandatory indication of authorship and source.

We highlight some essential and non-exhaustive points related:

  • The submission of the proposal implies a commitment not to submit it to another journal and authorizes if approved, its publication.
  • The submission of the proposal also implies that the author(s) agrees with the publication, without resulting in remuneration, reimbursement, or compensation of any kind.
  • The published texts are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the journal.
  • Responsibility for any plagiarism is the responsibility of the author(s).
  • The person responsible for the submission declares, under the penalties of the Law, that the information on the authorship of the work is complete and correct.

Also highlighted are the items related to our Editorial Policies, in particular on the Focus and Scope, Publication Ethics, Peer Review Process, and Open Access Policy.

How to Cite

Instrumentos de resolução negociada da corrupção empresarial no Brasil e as Recomendações da OCDE. Revista da CGU, [S. l.], v. 16, n. 30, 2025. DOI: 10.36428/revistadacgu.v16i30.712. Disponível em: https://revista.cgu.gov.br/Revista_da_CGU/article/view/712. Acesso em: 1 jun. 2025.

Similar Articles

1-10 of 256

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.