Alert: Canada has amended the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA) to include more rigorous corporate requirements and penalties

       

 

A recent amendment to the CFPOA eliminates the previously enacted facilitation or “grease payment” exception to the law, broadens the jurisdiction of the law to cover all Canadian nationals no matter where any alleged bribe may have taken place, increases the maximum sentence of imprisonment for violations, creates new criminal offenses for misrepresentation of corporate books and records, and expands the definition of “business” to include nonprofits.  Given this heightened focus on anti-corruption legislation within in Canada, it is imperative that appropriate mechanisms are in place to ensure that no Canadian officers, manager, employees, or agents are engaging in any conduct that could potentially be deemed a violation of the amended CFPOA.  It is namely important that all Canadian employees take note of the removal of the facilitation payment exception from the CFPOA and the now potential extraterritorial application of the CFPOA.

 

 

For more information see:  http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/249344/Antitrust+Competition/Corporate+Directors+Beware+Canada+Passes+Tough+Amendments+To+AntiCorruption+Legislation

Alert: Malaysia to bolster anti-corruption laws to include corporate liability

      

 

There have been recent talks amongst the Malaysian Prime Minister and Attorney General to amend Malaysia’s current anti-corruption laws to include corporate liability for anti-corruption violations committed for or on behalf of the company.  Given this heightened focus on corporate accountability for violations of anti-corruption laws, it is imperative that all top level management have protective mechanisms in place to ensure that no officers, managers, employees, or agents are engaging in any conduct that could potentially be deemed a violation of Malaysian Anti-corruption law.      

 

 

For more information see: http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v7/newsindex.php?id=961944

Foreign Customs Clearance: Avoiding Corruption and Ensuring Compliance

Source: Consilium Global Business Advisors,“Export Logistics - FCPA Enforcement and Compliance”, April 20, 2012

Author: Ed Marsh

Given that clearance is one of the riskiest and most vulnerable links in the customs process, a large percentage of FCPA violations have focused on illegal payments made to secure customs clearance. Foreign customs officials know the critical nature of the clearance process and the value of timely clearance. Thus, officials have leverage to extract illegal payments at this critical step.

Because of the volatility and exposure associated with customs clearance, shipper usually relies on BDP to assist them in this process. In order to safeguard our clients and ourselves, the billing and documentation must be detailed and specific to each transaction. Regardless of the number of deliveries, there must be a detailed accounting of each payment made for the customs clearance. It is this detailed billing information that allows us to monitor the customs clearance process and ensure that no illegal payments are made.

Complications continue to arise with regard to application of the FCPA’s “facilitation payment” exception. This exception authorizes a payment to foreign government officials for non-discretionary (“routine”) decisions in the customs clearance process. However, there are many scenarios where a shipment can be delayed at a border for minor paperwork issues. Is an expediting fee paid to a customs official despite an error in paperwork a proper fee or is it a discretionary action that does not fall within the facilitation payment exception?

Furthermore, such payments are now prohibited by the laws of many foreign countries as well as BDP policy. The global trend is to prohibit such payments because of the grave risk for misconduct that they foster.

Therefore, it is our duty to provide our clients with a secure and low-risk customs clearance process. Certain steps must be taken to ensure we are mitigating these risks:

1. Paperwork: The risk of bribes increases when a company’s shipment is delayed or seized at the foreign country’s border. If the paperwork is correct in every detail and in conformance with local law and regulations for the destination, the risk of such a delay or seizure is reduced.

2. Procedure: Review and understand our anti-corruption compliance procedures. Clients are looking to us to ensure their compliance within the customs clearance process. Therefore, use vendors who have good compliance programs and operate in a number of countries or regions in the world.

3. Communicate: It is necessary to inform our clients about BDP’s compliance expectations.

4. Review: Examine in detail all customs clearance invoices and provide details in each payment. Avoid ambiguous terms for payments which may cloak the appearance of illegal bribes. If a red flag is identified, the BDP employee must respond and elevate the issue for resolution.

 

Social Media Challenges and Risks

Baker & McKenzie’s Global Employment Practice Group released its 51st issue of The Global Employer entitled “The Social Media Issue.”  "Social media is changing the way that we communicate, work and do business, wherever we are in the world. Social networks provide opportunities for global interconnectedness like never before. The impact can be felt in all corners of business and its potential is…well, as yet unknowable. What we do know though, is that this new way of connecting carries enormous potential business and other benefits alongside inevitable challenges and risks. The smart business will want to work out how best to manage those challenges and risks without stifling the vast potential."  Read the full report here.

GoodCorporation: Anti-corruption procedures in Freight Forwarding and Logistics Industry

GoodCorporation performed an analysis of logistics companies, including BDP International, to determine the good corporate citizens in terms of anti-corruption corporate policy.  The report was published on its website.

Specifically, GoodCorporation conducted desk research on the top 30 leading international freight forwarding companies. The research included looking on the companies’ public website for two general policy requirements:
 
1) A published statement from company reiterating their stance on anti-corruption
2) A statement on facilitating payments

GoodCorporation determined that a "third of the companies had no anti-corruption statement" and "more than half had no statement on facilitating payments."  GoodCorporation warns that if a company does not have these public statements on their website that "from our experience, corrupt practices are more likely to occur."

BDP met the requirements of the study with an articulated policy (complete with a statement from our president) and a statement proscribing the use of facilitating payments.  This is good news because DOJ, SEC and other countries’ government agencies tasked with enforcement look to these research organizations to determine which companies might be at risk for violations. 

BDP International Women's Group hosts Lynne Abraham (former District Attorney of Philadelphia)

On May 4, 2011 BDP International Women’s Group hosted a networking event, Navigating Today’s Business Challenges, with special guest Lynne Abraham (former District Attorney of Philadelphia). The event took place at the lovely XIX Restaurant at the Bellevue Hotel where over 100 women of diverse business backgrounds were treated to post-work cocktails and hors d’oeuvres and an inspiring speech by Ms. Abraham. As Philadelphia’s longest standing District Attorney in history, Ms. Abraham is familiar with tackling business challenges while keeping her integrity intact. She presented terrific examples of the benefits of best business practices while also providing her female audience advice on guiding their careers with their own integrity and ethical fortitude. A spirited Q&A segment followed where the audience shared their own thoughts, advice and questions on the best way to realistically handle business challenges while maintaining honesty and integrity.


Some interesting observations and quotes from Ms. Abraham's speech:

“The Big I is missing, there is a total lack of Integrity at some companies.”

“What we need is to start a “movement of ethics” that is practiced all over the world.”

“When presented with the chance to cook the books, don’t do it!”

“One should live their life in a way that states to the world, this is who I am and I am authentic.”

“Lack of loyalty is a FACT of the current world, learn to deal with it.”

“If you want gratitude for anything you have ever done, buy a dog!”

“I want to watch women do smart things.”

“Lack of self confidence should be a motivational event not a debilitating one.”

“Trust is the important underpinning for all business.”

“People don’t want to be managed, they want to be lead!”

Leaders should:

1) exude positive energy

2) posses a passion for excellence

3) love the action

4) energize others

5) clearly communicate your own vision

6) love people and like being around them

7) be inspirational (Mentor vs. Sponsor)

8) have an edge and be bold

9) be prepared to take risk but don’t be reckless (risk makes people uncomfortable)

10) be a problem solver

11) be decisive…learn to make yes or no decisions

12) be nimble…Opportunities only present themselves once

13) Execute! On time!

14) be resilient

15) be innovative

16) love to learn

17) promote teamwork

18) Not over-promise (forces you to do things you shouldn’t)

19) be able to say, “We blew it!”

20) be fair to your subordinates

21) share the glory!

22) give “constructive” criticism

23) be good listeners

24) encourage your teams to be forthcoming

25) be intelligent (Your brain expands, fill it!)

The Coming Chaos In Global Enforcement

Source: FCPA Blog
Author: Richard L. Cassin, Esq., Cassin Law LLC, Singapore

Wednesday, June 29 - Anti-corruption laws are breaking out all over. In a few days, the U.K. Bribery Act will be a reality. Other countries, prodded by the OECD and U.S., are criminalizing overseas public bribery. Spain, the Netherlands, and the Czech Republic are among them. Russia has a new law, so do India and China. Indonesia wants one. In South America, Brazil joins the club, and others are talking about it.

It's good news. But what happens to a company and its executives if they're prosecuted in three, four, or five jurisdictions for the same bribes? Will the companies pay multiple fines? Will individuals be handed off from one prison to the next?

No one knows how it will work. There's no international superstructure in place to sort it out. And with big money up for grabs, there's sure to be enforcement competition. Earlier this year, we asked Richard Alderman, head of the U.K.'s Serious Fraud Office, about it. Here's the exchange:

FCPA Blog: When the Bribery Act becomes effective, should global companies fear the prospect of duplicate enforcement actions in both the U.S. and U.K.?

Richard Alderman: The SFO works closely with the DOJ and the SEC. We shall discuss how best to proceed. I do not want to see duplicate actions in each jurisdiction. I want the SFO to be able to agree with our U.S. counterparts on a resolution that we can pursue jointly with the corporate.

FCPA Blog: Isn't the prospect of multiple prosecutions even more disturbing if other countries join the U.S. and U.K. in aggressively pursuing global corruption? Do we need some kind of supra-national enforcement body?

Richard Alderman: It is important that the enforcement authorities liaise closely together so that there can be an overall resolution subject to the decisions of the courts in each jurisdiction. These issues are best left to the authorities in each jurisdiction and the courts.

Good intentions. But as more overseas antibribery laws come on line, will enforcement agencies always cooperate? Or will they sometimes compete? For starters, the coming uncertainty will make self reporting less attractive. After a voluntary disclosure in Washington, what will happen when prosecutors get a whiff of it in London, Madrid, Prague, Moscow, Beijing, and ten other places? Yet, with SOX obligations and the new SEC whistleblower rules, can any issuer really make a case against self reporting, even for one-off compliance problems? There are no easy answers.

So, let the chaos begin.

Bribery Act 2010

A top New Year priority for many in house lawyers will be to ensure that their organization has adequate procedures in place to comply with the Bribery Act 2010. Coming into force in April 2011, the Act includes a ‘corporate offense’ provision – the failure by a commercial organization to prevent bribery. It is a strict liability offense, or, perhaps more accurately, one of vicarious liability based upon the actions of the associated person. However, notwithstanding an offense of bribery, there is a defense available if an organization can prove, on the balance of probabilities, that it had in place adequate procedures designed to prevent associated persons from paying bribes. While the Act is not retrospective, it will be enacted in three short months. Companies must ensure that they have sound anti-corruption policies and procedures in place. Click here to view an article from Shoosmiths that shares helpful tips on creating an effective compliance plan.

UK Bribery Act Broadens the Scope of Anti-Bribery Provisions Formerly Set by FCPA

The UK Bribery Act 2010 is far-reaching; it has a worldwide scope, and focuses on corrupt payments to all persons – whether governmental, private citizens, agents, companies or employees, within the UK and overseas. It also penalizes the receipt of bribes whereas the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) does not. While this legislation overlaps significantly with the FCPA, it diverges in several important ways.

Click here for more information regarding the similarities and differences of the UK Bribery Act and FCPA.

For the complete UK Bribery Act 2010 click here.

Probe of Bribery at HP Heats Up

Source: The Wall Street Journal | David Crawford

The Department of Justice has requested Hewlett-Packard turn over company documents connected to an ongoing investigation. Click here to read more.

IBA 2010 Annual Conference | Vancouver | Oct 3-8

• The largest gathering of the international legal community in the world – a meeting place of more than 4,000 lawyers and legal professionals from around the world;
  
  
• More than 200 working sessions covering all areas of practice relevant to international legal practitioners;
  
  
• The opportunity to generate new business with many of the leading firms in the world’s key cities;
  
  
• Registration fee which entitles you to attend as many working sessions throughout the week as you wish;
  
  
• Continuing legal education and continuing professional development; and
  
  
• A variety of social functions providing ample opportunity to network and see the city’s key sights.

For more information, please see complete brochure here.

What's in a name?

Being in the service industry, our reputation is our greatest asset. We have spent over 40 years building goodwill in the name BDP, which has come to represent the best service the global logistics industry has to offer. To maintain that, we prosecute infringers, who can destroy what we have spent years creating through our dedication to each and every client.

Click here to read about a recent matter involving the BDP tradename and market confusion caused by a freight forwarding company named BPD International in Florida.

BDP hosts Women's Networking Breakfast

BDP International, Inc. will be hosting a Women's Networking Breakfast on June 23, 2010 in Philadelphia. This event features a panel of dynamic women who are leaders in global business. Each panelist will share her story complete with the challenges faced and opportunities seized pioneering her own path to success. For more information, please contact BDP Legal.

Proposed 4% sales tax on warehouse services in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Governor Rendell recently proposed a 4% sales tax on warehouse services. This sales tax gives our competitors in surrounding states an immediate 4% market advantage. The proposed increase in transport and storage costs in and out of Pennsylvania is bad for jobs and bad for tax collections; warehouse firms and their customers will sharply reduce Pennsylvania operations and the citizens of Pennsylvania will be worse off. Pennsylvania companies would then be forced to recommend warehousing in more strategic regions to the detriment of Pennsylvania.

Therefore, we ask that you join us in opposing Governor Rendell’s proposed sales tax on warehouse services, and assist us in protecting jobs and keeping funds in Pennsylvania. Please send a letter to your local Pennsylvania representative today!

Warehouse Tax Letter - Senate Office

FMC proposes exempting NVOCCs from rate filing

Source: www.fmc.gov

The U.S. Federal Maritime Commission Thursday released for comment a notice of proposed rulemaking that would relieve nearly 3,300 FMC-licensed non-vessel-operating common carriers from publishing tariffs for rates they charge for cargo shipments.

The exemption was requested by the National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America Inc. in a petition filed on July 31, 2008.

The rule proposes to establish an instrument called a "negotiated rate arrangement." Licensed NVOs who enter into negotiated rate arrangements with customers would be exempted from publishing their rates in tariffs, so long as they meet several conditions, including:

• NVOs would continue to publish "rules tariffs" containing terms and conditions governing shipments.
• NVOs would be required to provide those rules to the public free of charge.
• Rates NVOs charge must be agreed to and memorialized in writing by the date cargo is received for shipment.
• NVOs must retain documentation of the agreed rate and terms for each shipment for a period of five years, and must make that documentation available promptly to the commission on request.

Chairman Richard A. Lidinsky Jr., and commissioners Rebecca F. Dye and Michael A. Khouri voted to issue the proposed rulemaking, while Joseph E. Brennan dissented.

In February when the commission voted to initiate the rulemaking Brennan said granting the petition would give NVOs an unfair advantage over vessel-operating carriers and would effectively exempt NVOs from FMC regulatory oversight.

The FMC summarizes comments for and against the change in its 27-page notice of proposed rulemaking.

Those supporting it included Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., and Reps. Peter Welch, D-Vt., and Jerry Weller, R-Ill. Welch and Weller said publication is expensive, adds little value to the shipping public, and is out of step with the modern ocean transportation environment. Sanders noted that tariff-publishing requirements have not been updated for a number of years and cost freight forwarders time and resources.

The Department of Transportation said it has supported exemption of NVOs from tariff filing since such relief was first sought. The agency said the FMC’s exemption for NVOCC Service Arrangements (NSAs) does not go far enough and imposes unnecessary burdens and costs.

The Justice Department also said it supports an exemption for NVOs from all tariff publication requirements in order to produce the greatest competitive benefits.

A number of ocean transportation intermediaries said complying with tariff publication requirements is expensive and NVO customers do not request tariff information and do not rely on tariffs, as rates are negotiated individually.

OTIs gave average annual tariff publication costs ranging from $2,000 to $240,000, the latter number from DHL Global Forwarding based on stated average monthly costs of $20,000.

Some OTIs said NSAs have not provided adequate relief from tariff publication requirements, and that as NSAs are required to be filed with the FMC and their essential terms published in a tariff, they do not provide cost savings. Some OTIs state that shippers balk at the contractual commitments required by NSAs.

A number of OTIs state that since the terrorist attacks of 2001, they have added costs associated with security requirements such as Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism certification and the 24-hour advance manifest reporting requirement. They said they need “regulatory offsets” so that their limited resources can be invested in programs that benefit the shipping public and contribute to the nation’s security.

The National Industrial Transportation League, one of the largest shipper organizations, said shippers rarely review or consult tariffs to determine ocean transportation pricing, and that they function more as a costly regulatory afterthought. The NIT League suggested the proposed exemption would likely promote competition by reducing regulatory costs for NVOs, increasing their potential to offer competitive ocean rates to shippers.

The New York-New Jersey Foreign Freight Forwarders & Brokers Association Inc. said the tariff publication requirement inhibits the beneficial effects of competition for shippers, and is costly and unnecessary. It said NSAs are not a viable option for most NVO movements.

The Transportation Intermediaries Association said FMC regulations require NVOs to keep complete accounting records for every shipment, and tariff publication requirements duplicate that requirement. TIA said intermediaries often act as both forwarder and NVO on different segments of a movement, and the way that these arrangements are expressed in tariff language can cause confusion.

Opponents of the rulemaking, include firms such as Stan Levy Consulting and the tariff publishers: Distribution Publications Inc. (DPI), and Global Maritime Transportation Services Inc. (GMTS).

Levy said while shippers may not use tariffs on a daily basis, they provide a framework governing shipments so that when there is a cost or service issue, there is a legal tariff binding on all parties. And it said if the exemption is granted, NVO shippers would lose the ability to use the FMC as a forum for complaints, contrary to the intent of the Shipping Act. Levy said it would be more appropriate for Congress to revise the act.

DPI and GMTS said the tariffs published on their Web site are frequently used to verify rates in order to settle disputes and that the information is essential for the FMC to monitor NVO activities and protect the public from violations of Section 10 of the Shipping Act. GMTS said the exemption would shift the cost and burden of enforcement away from the industry to the FMC and the public.

Florida Shipowners’ Group Inc., commenting on behalf of Bernuth Lines, CMA CGM, Crowley Caribbean Services, Seaboard Marine, Sea Freight Line, and Tropical Shipping, agreed with one of the points raised by Brennan. Because NVOs compete with vessel operators, eliminating tariff publication requirements for NVOs while leaving them in place for vessel-operating common carriers (VOCCs) would affect the competitive balance between them. Costs borne by VOCCs to develop and maintain vessels, equipment and infrastructure needed to move international trade, dwarfs the costs borne by NVOs to comply with tariff requirements, they argued. Congress chose to retain the tariff publication requirement on both NVOs and VOCCs, and the FMC should not remove that requirement, they said.

The FMC asked that comments on the proposed rule be submitted by June 4. If an interested party requests an opportunity to present oral comments to the commission by May 14, the FMC said it will hold a public meeting to receive those comments on May 24.

Anti-corruption: US leads the way

Source: International Bar Association News | March 2010 | Skip Kaltenheuser

The global anti-corruption movement is making headway. The United States is often said to lead the world in this area. Here IBN speaks exclusively to US Department of Justice head of enforcement Mark Mendelsohn.

A major principle of criminal accounting since time immemorial remains in force: for every recipient of a bribe, there is a giver. The dark side of human nature has always found a way, and many bet it will still succeed. Or can determined efforts alter the equation?

Click here to read more.

A Tax Victory for Multinationals

SOURCE: Marie Leone - CFO.com | US | February 12, 2010

The White House drops its proposed reform of "check-the-box" tax rules. Will it pick it up again?

When the Obama Administration released its budget for fiscal 2011 last week, tax executives at U.S. multinationals breathed a sigh of relief. Conspicuously missing from the budget was a controversial proposal to reform the "check-the-box" tax rule, a loophole in the tax code that companies have been exploiting since its creation during the Clinton presidency. According to the Office of Management and Budget, tightening the loophole would have put an extra $87 billion into Treasury Department coffers over the next decade.

The check-the-box rule allows companies simply to mark off several items on an Internal Revenue Service form to declare that their foreign subsidiaries should be treated as disregarded entities, rather than corporations with passive income that is subject to U.S. taxes. The effect is "to make foreign subsidiaries 'disappear' for U.S. tax purposes," said IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman last year.

Click here to read more.

New Incoterms expected to take effect in 2011

SOURCE: Hunt & Hunt | Customs Trade and Transport Law e-alert | 5 February 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authors: Andrew Hudson, Partner
Brendan Sheehan, Lawyer

The standardised international trading terms known as Incoterms are being revised and are likely to be finalised later this year and then take effect 1 January 2011.

What are Incoterms?

Incoterms is short for “International Commercial Terms”. The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) introduced the first version of Incoterms in 1936. The current version of Incoterms is called Incoterms 2000.

Incoterms are extensively used in international sales contracts as they are widely recognised and understood commercially. Incoterms determine critical issues such as who will pay for the carriage of the goods and the point that risk passes between the parties.

Even if you are not experienced with using Incoterms, you may be familiar with FOB, which is the Free On Board Incoterm. FOB is commonly misused by parties and often other Incoterms such as FCA or FAS are more appropriate. If you are presented with contracts that contain Incoterms and you do not understand the meaning of the Incoterms you should seek legal advice, as the use of the appropriate Incoterm can minimise your risks and obligations.

What are the proposed changes?

Frank Reynolds, the US Delegate to the ICC’s Incoterms Committee has been providing International Trade Law News with updates on the proposed changes to Incoterms 2000. According to International Trade Law News, Mr Reynolds has indicated that the new version of Incoterms will be entitled “Incoterms 2010”.Incoterms 2010 are expected to be more user-friendly and the explanations of each Incoterm will be expanded to assist users of the Incoterms. Some of the specific changes that are expected include:

• Clear distinction to be made between the multimodal Incoterms and Incoterms for marine use.
• Cargo security to be covered to the extent possible with differing regulatory systems.
• Elimination of some of the current 13 Incoterms. However, despite some speculation, Incoterm FAS is likely to remain.
• Inclusion of a new term for use in domestic transactions and transactions where no export or
• import clearance obligations exist.

What do you need to do?

Incoterms 2010 are not expected to take effect until 1 January 2011 and the final version has not yet been settled. We will continue to update you on the progress of the revisions. In the meantime, we recommend that you ensure, and if necessary seek legal advice to ensure, that your commercial trading terms accurately reflect the transaction.

BDP joins UN Global Compact

PHILADELPHIA, February 12, 2010 - BDP International, a leading privately held global logistics and transportation services firm, has joined the United Nations Global Compact, a strategic policy initiative for businesses committed to aligning their operations and strategies with 10 universally accepted principles in the areas of human rights, labor standards, the environment and anti-corruption.

"BDP is committed to good corporate citizenship in the global community," said BDP President and CEO Richard J. Bolte, Jr. "The Global Compact offers a unique strategic platform for reinforcing that commitment by supporting and advancing these principles within our own organization and sphere of influence.

"These principles will become part of the strategy, culture and day-to-day operations of our company, as well as our engagement in collaborative projects which advance the broader development goals of the United Nations, particularly the Millennium Development Goals."

Established in 2000, the Global Compact is now the largest corporate citizenship and sustainability initiative in the world with more than 7,700 corporate signatories and stakeholders from over 130 countries.

Enforcement of REACH Regulation Begins

Companies importing into the European Union are now seeing clear signs of enforcement of the REACH regulation that was put into effect 1 June 2007. Incidences of shipments being blocked at ports and very thorough site inspections are being carried out, with one Hungarian company noting that inspectors had even suggested taking samples of chemicals for testing. These and other examples of enforcement were highlighted at the European Chemical Agency's (ECHA) third stakeholder day on 3 December 2009.

REACH director at the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), Erwin Annys, told delegates that its members had reported a significant increase in the level of activity concerning chemicals inspections this past year. The number of inspections and the value of penalties associated with non-compliance, however, is vastly biased depending on the EU Member State.

The UK's penalty regime for violations of the REACH regulation is one of the strictest in Europe, joined by Ireland and Malta, with conviction resulting in the possibility of an unlimited fine and up to two years in jail.

Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Greece, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia impose administrative penalties only, while 13 other countries apply a mixture of administrative and criminal sanctions including Belgium, France, Germany and the Netherlands. Click here to review the penalties given by each of the EU Member states.

Industry representatives remain concerned about the lack of uniformity and precedent security of REACH enforcement. Specifically, fee structures are linked to a country's penalty regime without any consideration of the volume of production, and there appears to be no clear distinction between deliberate violations and small errors when penalties are determined.

Sources:

ChemicalWatch, "850 REACH Inspections in 2009 and More to Come"

ENDS Report, "Concern Over Variation in Nations' REACH Fines"

SGS Hong Kong, "EU Member States REACH Enforcement Regime"