• Australia ratified the UNCAC and the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention in December 2005 and October 1999 respectively. It became a member of the FATF in 1990 and the APG in 1997. The Australian legal system is based on English common law. Its domestic bribery offences have not been externally reviewed. However, Australia’s foreign bribery offence and related enforcement issues have been examined extensively under the OECD Convention’s monitoring mechanism. To avoid duplication, this report will draw heavily on the OECD’s monitoring reports. It will also refer to FATF evaluation reports where appropriate.

  • Bangladesh acceded to the UNCAC in February 2007 and was a founding member of the APG in 1997. The Bangladeshi legal system is based on English common law. Bangladesh’s criminal bribery offences have not been externally reviewed.

  • Bhutan signed UNCAC in 2005 but has not yet ratified the Convention as of April 2010. It is not a member of the APG. Bhutan’s legal system is based on British common law and Indian law. Its criminal bribery offences have not been externally reviewed.

  • In 2007, Cambodia acceded to the UNCAC and signed the ASEAN Memorandum of Understanding for Preventing and Combating Corruption (SEA-PAC).It has been a member of the APG since 2004. The Cambodian legal system consists of mainly continental civil law elements but also includes legislative acts, royal decrees, sub-decrees, circulars, orders and customary law elements. Cambodia’s criminal bribery offences have not been externally reviewed.

  • The People’s Republic of China’s (P.R. China) legal system is based on civil law. P.R. China ratified the UNCAC in January 2006. It has been a member of the APG since 1997. China’s criminal bribery offences have not been externally reviewed.

  • The Cook Islands is self-governing and in free association with New Zealand. It has full constitutional authority to enter into international arrangements and treaties. The Government of the Cook Islands can also request the New Zealand Government to extend ratification of international conventions to the Cook Islands. The Cook Islands has been a member of the APG since 2001. The Cook Islands’ legal system is based on English common law. It is not a State Party to UNCAC as of May 2010. Its criminal bribery offences have not been externally reviewed.

  • Fiji’s legal system is based on the English common law system. It acceded to the UNCAC in May 2008. Fiji’s criminal bribery offences were externally reviewed under the UNCAC’s Pilot Review Mechanism. Fiji has been a member of the APG since 1998.

  • Hong Kong, China’s legal system is based on the English common law system. Its criminal bribery offences have not been externally reviewed. The UNCAC applies to Hong Kong, China by reason of P.R. China’s ratification. Hong Kong, China has been a member of the FATF and APG since 1991 and 1997 respectively.

  • As of September 2010, India has signed but not yet ratified the UNCAC. It has been a member of the APG since 1998. India’s legal system is mainly based on statutory and common law. Its criminal bribery offences have not been externally reviewed.

  • Indonesia’s legal system in based on civil (Roman-Dutch) law, with indigenous influences, and some Islamic (Sharia) law at the local level in certain regions. Indonesia signed and ratified the UNCAC in September 2006. It has been a member of the APG since 1999. As of September 2010, Indonesia has participated in the UNCAC Pilot Review Programme and its bribery offences have been externally reviewed.

  • Japanese criminal law and procedure draw from French, German and (more recently) Anglo-American legal systems. As a Party to the OECD Anti- Bribery Convention, Japan’s offences for foreign bribery have been extensively reviewed. Its domestic bribery offences, however, have not been externally reviewed. As of August 2009, Japan has signed but has not ratified the UNCAC. Japan has been a member of the FATF and APG since 1990 and 1997 respectively. To avoid duplication, this report will rely heavily on the OECD’s monitoring reports regarding the foreign bribery offence and related enforcement issues. It will also refer to FATF/APG evaluation reports whenever appropriate.

  • The Kazakh legal system has roots in Soviet and continental law. Kazakhstan has been a State Party to UNCAC since June 2008. It is a member of the Eurasian Group on Combating Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism (EAG). Since 2005, Kazakhstan’s criminal bribery offences have been externally reviewed under the Monitoring Process of the OECD Anti- Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia (ACN).  To avoid duplication, this report will refer extensively to the ACN’s reports on Kazakhstan.

  • The Korean legal system derives primarily from continental civil law with some elements of Anglo-American law. Korea ratified the UNCAC and the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention in February 2008 and January 1999 respectively. Korea joined the APG in 1998 and the FATF in 2009. Korea’s domestic bribery offences have not been externally reviewed. However, its foreign bribery offence and related enforcement issues have been examined extensively under the OECD Convention’s monitoring mechanism. To avoid duplication, this report will draw heavily on the OECD’s monitoring reports. It will also refer to FATF/APG evaluation reports where appropriate.

  • The Kyrgyz legal system has roots in Soviet and continental law. Kyrgyzstan has been a State Party to UNCAC since 16 September 2005. It is a member of the Eurasian Group on Combating Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism (EAG). Since 2004, Kyrgyzstan’s criminal bribery offences have been externally reviewed under the Monitoring Process of the OECD Anti- Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia (ACN).  To avoid duplication, this report will refer to the ACN’s monitoring reports and the EAG’s mutual evaluation reports whenever appropriate.

  • Macao, China’s legal system is largely based on the continental civil law system. Its criminal bribery offences have not been externally reviewed. The UNCAC applies to Macao, China by reason of P.R. China’s ratification. Macao, China has been a member of the APG since 2001.

  • Malaysia ratified the UNCAC in September 2008. It has been a member of the APG since 2000. Malaysia is also a member of the International Association of Anti-Corruption Agencies and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Anti-Corruption and Transparency Experts Task Force. The Malaysian legal system is based primarily on English common law. Its criminal bribery offences have not been externally reviewed.

  • Mongolia ratified the UNCAC in January 2006. It has been a member of the APG since 2004. The Mongolian legal system is based primarily on the continental civil law system but with vestiges of the Soviet legal system. Its criminal bribery offences have not been externally reviewed.

  • As of September 2009, Nepal has signed but has not yet ratified the UNCAC. It has been a member of the APG since 2002. Nepal’s legal system is based on the English common law but with some Hindu legal concepts. Its criminal bribery offences have not been externally reviewed.

  • Pakistan ratified the UNCAC in August 2007. It is a member of the APG. The Pakistani legal system is based primarily on English common law with some Islamic legal elements. Its criminal bribery offences have not been externally reviewed.

  • The Republic of Palau (Palau) acceded to UNCAC in March 2009. It has been a member of the APG since 2002. Palau’s legal system is based on common law (as understood and applied in the United States) and customary laws. Its criminal bribery offences have not been externally reviewed.

  • Papua New Guinea (PNG) acceded to the UNCAC in July 2007. It has been a member of the APG since 2008. PNG’s legal system is based on English common law. Its criminal bribery offences have not been externally reviewed. However, PNG’s implementation of UNCAC (Chapters III and IV) will be reviewed in the first phase of the new UNCAC Review Mechanism.

  • The Philippine legal system is based on Spanish and Anglo-American law and thus has both civil and common law influences. The Philippines has been a State Party to UNCAC since 8 November 2006. Its criminal bribery offences were externally reviewed under the UNCAC’s Pilot Review Programme. The Philippines has been a member of the APG since 1997.

  • As of October 2010, Samoa has not signed nor acceded to UNCAC. It has been a member of the APG since 2000. Samoa’s legal system is based on English common law with some local customary law. Its criminal bribery offences have not been externally reviewed.

  • Singapore ratified the UNCAC in November 2009. It has been a member of the FATF and APG since 1992 and 1997 respectively. The Singaporean criminal legal system is based primarily on statute and case law interpreting the statute. Its criminal bribery offences have not been externally reviewed.

  • Sri Lanka ratified the UNCAC in March 2004 and is a founding member of the APG since 1997. The Sri Lankan legal system is based on English common law. Its criminal bribery offences have not been externally reviewed.

  • The Thai legal system has civil law influences, e.g. it is based on a code system and judicial decisions are not binding. Thailand signed the UNCAC in 2003 but has yet to ratify the Convention. Its criminal bribery offences have not been externally reviewed. Thailand was a founding member of the APG in 1997.

  • As of May 2009, Vanuatu has not yet signed nor acceded to UNCAC. It has been a member of the APG since 1999. Vanuatu has a unified legal system based on British common law and French civil law. Its criminal bribery offences have not been externally reviewed.

  • Viet Nam ratified the UNCAC in August 2009. It has been a member of the APG since 2007. The Vietnamese legal system is based on the civil law and the communist legal system. Its criminal bribery offences have not been externally reviewed.