Anti-Corruption: Conducting cross-border investigations

Companies investigating fraud in both the UK and US need to be aware of key differences in local legislation, explain Ellen Temperton, James Storke and Jim Hart

Cases Referenced

  • Bolton School v Evans [2006] EWCA (Civ) 1653
  • City of Ontario v Quon 130 S Ct 2619; 177 L Ed 2d 216 (2010)
  • Crisp v Apple Retail (UK) Ltd [2011] ET/1500258/11
  • DeGuelle v Camilli No 10-2172; 2011 US App LEXIS 24868 (7th Cir Dec 15 2011)
  • Gucci America Inc v Guess Inc 271 FRD 58 65 (SDNY 2010) and 09 CV 04373 (SDNY Jan 3 2011)
  • Halford v UK [1997] ECHR 32
  • Madanes v Madanes 199 FRD 135 (SDNY 2001)
  • Niemietz v Germany [1993] 16 EHRR 97
  • Serco Ltd v Lawson [2006] UKHL 3
  • Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 5) [2003] EWHC 2565 (Comm)
  • Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 5) [2003] QB 1556
  • United States v United Shoe Machinery Corp 89 F Supp 357; 358-59 (D Mass 1950)
  • Upjohn Co v US 449 US 383; 389; 101 S Ct 677; 66 L Ed 2d 584 (1981)
  • Villanueva v Core Labs NV; ARB No. 09-108 (Dec 22 2011)
  • Williams v American Airlines ARB Case No 09-918 (Dec 10 2010)