{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":2,"sheets":["Coversheet","Lex Mundi Global Anti-Corruptio"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":1,"macros":0,"external_links":0,"defined_names":0,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"Coversheet","index":0,"n_rows":12,"n_cols":3,"rows_kept":12,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[]
[]
[null,"Prepared By:","Contributors:"]
[null,"Tilleke & Gibbins"]
[]
[]
[]
["Lex Mundi Global Anti-Corruption Compliance Guide"]
[]
["Report Generated: 11/19/2025"]
[]
["View your report results on next tab"]

{"sheet":"Lex Mundi Global Anti-Corruptio","index":1,"n_rows":13,"n_cols":2,"rows_kept":13,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["Question","Myanmar"]
["Anti-Corruption Compliance"]
["What is the key anti-bribery and corruption legislation in your jurisdiction?","The key anti-bribery and corruption legislation for prosecuting corrupt conduct in Myanmar is the \nPenal Code and the \nAnti-Corruption Law of 2013. Other civil and criminal law provisions in separate legislation also address bribery and corruption; however, the \nPenal Code and \nAnti-Corruption Law provide the foundation for which the legal system counters corrupt activities.\n"]
["Has there been a specific anti-bribery and corruption law enacted in your jurisdiction in the last ten years?","Myanmar’s \nAnti-Corruption Law was enacted in 2013 (its most recent amendment—the fourth—was on June 21, 2018) and is the first in a series of laws, notifications, and guidelines which specifically address corrupt conduct. On October 19, 2018, the Myanmar Anti-Corruption Commission published a notification under \nSection 72(b) of the Anti-Corruption Law which introduced a series of fundamental principles for companies to adopt in developing appropriate internal control measures to prevent corruption.\nOther recently enacted laws that have provisions that address bribery and corruption include the \nMyanmar Investment Law 2016, the \nMyanmar Investment Rules 2017, the \nIncome Tax Law 1974 (as last amended in 2016), and the \nCommercial Tax Law 1990 (as last amended in 2015). This continued trend of implementing additional laws addressing corruption is intended by the government to demonstrate Myanmar’s commitment to improving opportunities for foreign business and investment. For example, the \nPresident’s Office Guidelines on Accepting Gifts, which was published in 2016, is aimed at eliminating “tea money” incentives among government officials.\n\n\n \n"]
["Is a bribe payment to domestic government officials prohibited by the legislation?","Yes, by both the \nPenal Code and the \nAnti-Corruption Law.  \nSection 161 of the \nPenal Code addresses the acceptance of benefits by government officials or public servants in exchange for the exercise of the person’s official function or omission of such exercise; however, the wording of this particular section appears to limit the punishment of the offense to only government officials or public servants. Nonetheless, in practice, the private individuals offering bribes can be charged for abetting convicted public servants in the crime under the Penal Code section on abetment.\nThe \nAnti-Corruption Law defines corruption as the direct or indirect abuse of his post and authority or other means by any person in order when performing or refraining from performing a lawful act by offering, giving, or discussing a form of consideration in order to receive a benefit for himself or another person or organization. Prior to the \n4th Amendment to the 2013 \nAnti-Corruption Law, the definition of corruption referred to abuse of his position by “an authoritative person,” defined as public servants,  individuals holding political positions, and senior government officials.  The \n4th Amendment removed the “authoritative person” wording and substituted abuse by “any person,” thereby expanding the \nAnti-Corruption Law to include corruption involving only private persons and not government officials. \n\n\n \n"]
["Is a bribe payment to foreign government officials prohibited by the legislation?","The legislation does not specifically address the payment of bribes to foreign government officials except when occurring in Myanmar, which is consistent with the general principle of Myanmar laws not extending beyond the Republic’s boundaries.\nNonetheless, in addition to Myanmar’s anti-corruption laws, business operators should also be aware of possible infringements of the \nForeign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) of the United States and the \nUnited Kingdom Bribery Act. Both these acts cover active and passive forms of bribery. Although the domestic anti-corruption laws of Myanmar do not cover acts occurring outside Myanmar, these foreign laws generally apply to bribes extended by Myanmar citizens and companies in those jurisdictions, as well as corrupt acts committed in Myanmar by British and U.S. citizens and companies. \n\n\n \n"]
["Is requesting or accepting a bribe prohibited by the legislation?","Yes, both requesting and accepting a bribe is prohibited.  \nSection 161 of the \nPenal Code prohibits the acceptance, an agreement to accept, or the solicitation of a bribe from any person, for himself or any other person which is not legal remuneration, and in exchange for the official’s or public servant’s exercising of their official function. \nSections 162 and \n163 similarly prohibit acceptance or solicitation of a bribe by any person for inducing or motivating a public servant’s decision making by corrupt or illegal means (\nSection 162) or by using his personal influence (\n163).\nThe \nAnti-Corruption Law’s definition of corruption also includes the accepting, receiving, attempting to receive, or discussing the acceptance of benefit in order to receive a benefit for himself or another organization.\n\n\n \n"]
["Who is subject to the legislation?","All government officials and civil servants are the subjects of the \nPenal Code anti-bribery provisions.  Individuals in the private sector can be prosecuted as well for abetting offenders in the public sector.  The \n2018 Amendment to the Anti-Corruption Law changed the subject of the legislation from government officials to “any person”.\n"]
["Is there criminal liability for corporate entities who have either paid or accepted a bribe payment?","There are no provisions in the \nPenal Code or the \nAnti-Corruption Law which provide for separate penalties related to criminal liability for corporate entities who paid or accepted bribes. However, the \nMyanmar Interpretation of Expressions Law (1973) includes any company in the definition of the word “person,” Thus, the same penalties theoretically apply to companies, or the directors, managers, or employees of companies; and private individuals. \n"]
["What is the penalty for individuals violating the law?","The punishment for a government official or public servant for committing the offense of bribery as defined in \nSection 161 of the \nPenal Code is imprisonment up to three years, a fine, or both.\nSection 55 of the \nAnti-Corruption Law states a “political post holder” convicted of corruption is liable to a fine and up to 15 years’ imprisonment;\n Section 56 states any other authorized person is liable to a fine and up to ten years imprisonment; and\nSection 57 states anyone else is liable to a fine and up to seven years imprisonment. The same penalties apply to those committing a conspiracy or abetment offense. Thus, the law provides for different levels of punishment for bribery depending on the status level and position of the offender.\n"]
["Assuming corporate entities are liable for violating the legislation, what is the penalty for corporate entities violating the law?","As explained above regarding the extension of the individual liability to the companies themselves, the penalties for violations of law are no different. Practically, the law can penalize the individuals of a corporate entity the same as they would individuals acting outside the scope of their position in an entity.\nMyanmar anti-corruption provisions also recognize the confiscation of property or assets involved in corrupt conduct; therefore, a corporate entity could lose their right to property or assets which are involved in bribes to government officials. Nonetheless, Myanmar courts have not used the \nAnti-Corruption Law to hold any companies in the private sector liable for corruption offenses—though they have used the law against private company officers. \n"]
["Assuming corporate entities are liable for violating the legislation, does having a compliance program designed to prevent bribery constitute a defense?","Currently, there are defenses which an entity can raise to rebut bribery charges which relate to a compliance program that a company may have. However, the recent \nNotification No.14/2018, in conjunction with \nSection 16(q) of the \nAnti-Corruption Law, strongly encourages companies to implement and maintain a compliance program to reduce the risks of instances of bribery occurring as a result of directors, managers, or employees conduct. The existence or non-existence of such a compliance program is likely to impact the prosecution of alleged corrupt acts by a company.\nAdditionally, it is imperative that foreign and local investors take a proactive and cautious approach to ensure that they are minimizing potential liabilities, both under domestic and foreign anti-corruption laws. Perhaps it is even more important to have a compliance program in place while Myanmar continues to develop its anti-corruption policies, especially when enforcement and penalties are not yet consistent.\n\n\n \n"]
["Assuming corporate entities are liable for violating the anticorruption law, is it possible for a corporate entity to reach a deferred prosecution agreement or leniency agreement with the enforcement authorities?","Any type of deferred prosecution agreements, lenient sentencing, or plea agreements for individuals or entities would be decided on a case by case basis within Myanmar’s legal system and is not provided for by any statutory provision.\n"]