From OECD Pressure to FCPA Heat: The Latest Enforcement Trends Turkish Boards Must Act Now

Global Anti‑Corruption Enforcement Trends in 2025

U.S. FCPA Enforcement: Global anti-bribery enforcement remains intense, with the United States leading in actions and penalties. In 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought a total of 38 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement actions, including 14 corporate cases and 24 individual prosecutions. Total fines exceeded $1.5 billion – the highest annual sum in five years – underscoring U.S. regulators’ aggressive approach. Notably, many of the largest FCPA cases have targeted non-U.S. companies, highlighting the statute’s global reach. For example, in 2024 Swiss commodity trader Gunvor paid nearly $475 million in U.S. penalties to resolve bribery charges, and U.S. aerospace firm RTX (Raytheon) agreed to a $383 million settlement over illicit payments related to Qatar. The U.S. continues to pursue hefty sanctions: eight of the ten biggest FCPA penalties ever have been against companies outside the U.S., and 2024’s cases confirm this international focus. Even as a temporary White House-ordered “pause” slowed new FCPA cases in early 2025, enforcement has since resumed with revised DOJ guidelines. The June 2025 DOJ guidance directs prosecutors to be more selective – prioritizing cases with clear harm to U.S. interests or national security and targeting individual wrongdoers – but without renouncing the FCPA’s broad jurisdiction. In practice, this means U.S. authorities remain ready to act against corruption involving foreign companies when it impacts U.S. markets or competitors, while coordinating with foreign regulators in other instances. Crucially for Turkish businesses, personal accountability is front and center: U.S. enforcement is not only levying corporate fines but prosecuting executives (24 individuals were charged in 2024 alone), with prison terms up to 5 years per bribery count under FCPA statutes and even higher under money laundering laws. The “FCPA heat” is therefore very real – non-U.S. firms and their officers can and do face U.S. indictments if bribes touch American jurisdiction (such as use of U.S. banks or stock exchanges).

UK Bribery Act and European Enforcement: Outside the U.S., enforcement of anti-bribery laws is intensifying. The UK’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) continues to pursue high-profile cases under the UK Bribery Act 2010 (UKBA). In April 2025, the SFO charged London-based United Insurance Brokers Ltd. (UIB) with the corporate offense of “failure to prevent bribery” – alleging UIB’s agents paid about $3 million in bribes to officials in Ecuador between 2013–2016 to win $38 million in reinsurance contracts. This marks a significant Bribery Act prosecution that could for the first time test in court whether a company had “adequate procedures” in place to prevent bribery. (Previously, all UKBA corporate cases settled without trial, so this UIB case may set a compliance benchmark.) The UK has also broadened its toolkit: a new “failure to prevent fraud” corporate offense came into force in September 2025, applying to both UK and overseas companies that have a business presence in the UK. The SFO explicitly warned that “time is running short for corporations to get their house in order” before it uses this law, signaling eagerness to aggressively hold companies accountable for economic crime. Meanwhile, British authorities have encouraged more self-reporting and cooperation, but also executed coordinated cross-border raids and investigations (for instance, the SFO’s 2023 bribery probe into construction firm Blu-3 involved simultaneous searches in multiple countries).

OECD Convention Pressure and Global Actions: The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, now 25 years old, continues to pressure signatory countries to prosecute foreign bribery by their nationals. This peer pressure has driven legal reforms (e.g. the UK Bribery Act’s passage in 2010) and major cases in countries like France, Germany, and Brazil. However, enforcement among the 46 signatories remains uneven. Transparency International’s latest review found that by 2022 only 2 countries were “active” enforcers of foreign bribery (down from 7 active enforcers in 2018), reflecting declines in prosecutions in countries such as Germany and Italy. On the other hand, a few states have ramped up efforts: France’s financial prosecutor (PNF) has secured multiple corporate settlements (CJIPs) against multinationals, and countries like Switzerland and the Netherlands have penalized banks for enabling overseas bribery schemes. Importantly for Türkiye, the OECD’s Working Group on Bribery delivered a scathing Phase 4 evaluation in June 2024, finding that Türkiye has not secured a single foreign bribery conviction since joining the Convention in 2000. Out of 23 known allegations involving Turkish companies or individuals, nearly two-thirds were never even investigated, and none of the remainder led to charges. No Turkish company has been held liable for either foreign or domestic bribery in the past 15 years. These findings prompted stern OECD recommendations and mark growing international impatience with Turkey’s enforcement gap. The upshot is that Turkish businesses face a dual threat: on one side, robust foreign enforcement (from the U.S., UK and others) targeting cross-border corruption, and on the other, mounting pressure on Turkish authorities to start prosecuting such cases at home. In short, global “FCPA heat” and OECD scrutiny together create an environment in 2025 where no major company can assume bribery will go unnoticed or unpunished, even if local enforcement has been lenient historically.

Türkiye’s Latest Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) Score and Ranking

Another indicator of Turkey’s anti-corruption climate is the Corruption Perceptions Index. The most recent CPI (2024) score for Türkiye is 34 out of 100, placing it well below the global average score of 43. In the 2024 CPI rankings, Turkey stood at 107th out of 180 countries. While this was a slight climb from 115th the year prior, Transparency International clarified that the movement was due to other countries’ declines rather than any improvement in Turkey. In fact, Turkey’s score of 34 remains the lowest the country has recorded since 2004, illustrating a long-term slide from a peak score of 50 in 2013. This poor CPI performance reflects persistent perceptions of high corruption in Turkey’s public sector – an assessment echoed by the OECD’s findings of weakened institutions and oversight. TI’s analysis attributes Turkey’s stagnation to “the absence of an independent and effective anti-corruption body, the weakening of oversight mechanisms and a lack of reforms”. Notably, among countries seeking EU membership, Turkey now ranks near the bottom in corruption control. For Turkish boards, the CPI serves as a red flag: investors and partners view Turkey as a high-corruption-risk jurisdiction, which in turn heightens scrutiny of Turkish companies’ governance. In practical terms, a low CPI ranking can translate into less foreign investment and greater due diligence demands from counterparties. Boards should treat Turkey’s CPI status as a call to action to bolster internal compliance – to not only improve the country’s score over time but also to reassure global stakeholders that Turkish companies are actively managing corruption risks.

Beyond Defense and Energy: New Sectoral Corruption Risks for Turkish Companies

Historically, industries like defense and energy have been regarded as high-risk for corruption in Turkey and emerging markets. Indeed, the OECD specifically warns of Turkey’s “continued expansion of companies in high-risk sectors such as defence and construction”. However, enforcement trends and recent scandals show corruption risk is spreading to other sectors – meaning Turkish firms beyond the usual defense/energy sphere must be vigilant. In 2025, notable risk sectors include construction and infrastructure, healthcare and pharmaceuticals, fintech and financial services, and real estate:

• Construction & Infrastructure: The construction industry in Turkey is notoriously prone to bribery and bid-rigging. Large public works and real estate development projects often involve opaque tender processes, political connections, and illicit payments. Reports have documented that “permits are illegally awarded, and bribes between government officials and developers are exchanged” in major construction projects. Nepotism and favoritism in contracting are common, and investigations into construction corruption are frequently stalled or obstructed. These practices came under harsh spotlight after the 2023 earthquakes, when shoddy building construction (allegedly enabled by bribed safety inspectors or amnesties) contributed to devastating outcomes. Globally, construction and infrastructure consistently rank among the most corrupt sectors – from the Odebrecht case in Latin America to bribery schemes in World Bank-funded projects – and Turkish construction giants operating abroad face similar exposures. Risk factors include reliance on government contracts, use of agents or consultants to secure permits, and the pressure to pay “commissions” to expedite zoning or land acquisition. For Turkish developers, a major example is the alleged bribery surrounding high-rise permits in Istanbul’s protected zones (e.g. the controversial zoning changes benefiting certain mall projects). Turkish authorities have often been reluctant to prosecute these cases, but foreign enforcement could intervene if, say, cross-border investors or financing are involved (bringing projects under U.S. or EU jurisdiction). Turkish construction firms should thus implement rigorous controls around bidding, permitting, and subcontractor selection to mitigate these entrenched risks.
• Healthcare & Pharmaceuticals: The healthcare sector has emerged as high-risk for corruption in Turkey, especially in public procurement of medical services and supplies. A stark illustration was provided in late 2020: a Deputy Health Minister’s family company was secretly awarded a no-bid contract to build and run the government’s health data system (e-Nabız) – a deal reportedly worth millions of dollars. Whistleblowers described this as part of a “corruption, theft, and bribery system” funneling health IT contracts to politically connected firms. Beyond IT, there have been persistent allegations of bribery in hospital tenders, kickbacks for the purchase of medical equipment, and pharmaceutical companies paying incentives to doctors or officials to favor their drugs. In April 2025, the Turkish Medical Association publicly warned that “systemic corruption is pushing the country’s health system to the brink,” citing pervasive graft in hospital administration and drug supply chains. This sector is under increasing scrutiny worldwide: for example, multinational pharma companies have faced corruption investigations in Turkey – a notable case being the 2016 probe into Novartis, whose Turkey unit was accused of paying bribes via a consultant to gain $85 million in illicit advantages. Healthcare corruption directly endangers lives and erodes public trust, making it a top enforcement priority. Turkish healthcare companies should enforce strict anti-bribery policies around procurement, marketing, and clinical trials, and ensure any interactions with healthcare professionals meet ethical and transparency standards (such as those in EU and U.S. compliance codes).
• Fintech & Financial Services: Turkey’s booming fintech and digital finance sector – from payment apps and crypto exchanges to online lenders – also presents emerging corruption and fraud risks. Many fintech startups operate in a regulatory gray area or rush to scale quickly, which can lead to shortcuts in compliance. The global experience shows that new opportunities for illicit financial flows have emerged with fintech’s rise. For example, weak controls in a fintech platform might allow bribery payments to be obscured as “virtual transactions,” or a crypto exchange might be used to funnel kickbacks overseas. Furthermore, obtaining operating licenses or regulatory approval for fintech services could invite bribery in jurisdictions with less mature governance. Regulators are catching up: money laundering and sanctions evasion via crypto-assets are a big focus in the EU and U.S., and bribery schemes have been alleged in the award of telecom and fintech licenses in some countries (e.g. the scandal involving telecom licenses in Uzbekistan, which ensnared Nordic and Russian firms). In Turkey, the rapid adoption of digital banking and the government’s interest in fintech innovation mean companies must self-regulate with robust compliance. Risk factors include any engagement with regulators (e.g. to get a payment license), partnership deals with state-affiliated banks, and use of third-party brokers to acquire customers. Fintech firms should implement controls analogous to banks – strong Know-Your-Customer (KYC) and anti-money-laundering checks, plus training staff on anti-bribery expectations – to avoid becoming conduits for corruption or targets of enforcement.
• Real Estate & Property Development: The real estate sector often overlaps with construction but has specific corruption typologies. In Turkey, property development and zoning approvals are infamous hotspots for graft. Bribes may be paid to re-zone green or protected land for construction (for instance, media investigations have alleged payoffs in exchange for permits to build on Istanbul’s parkland or coastline). Local officials and municipality councils wield discretionary power in granting building permits and occupancy licenses, which can be abused. Internationally, real estate is also a favored vehicle for money laundering – corrupt officials or businesspeople may launder bribe proceeds by purchasing luxury properties (sometimes via anonymous companies) in Turkey or abroad. The OECD has pointed out that “infrastructure projects and property development” are among industries where foreign bribery is prevalent. A concrete example linking Turkish real estate to bribery is the 2013 corruption scandal in Turkey, where allegations surfaced of developers bribing officials to overlook code violations and expedite high-rise projects (this scandal implicated several businessmen and even a cabinet minister). Although those probes were quashed domestically, the facts are well-known and underscore the risk. Turkish real estate firms with international investors should also be aware of laws like the U.S. Real Estate Transparency Act (under consideration) and EU anti-money laundering directives that increasingly target property transactions. Mitigation measures include transparency in land acquisitions, avoiding use of unvetted intermediaries for permit lobbying, monitoring politically exposed persons in deals, and cooperating with initiatives for property registries that reveal ultimate owners. By cleaning up real estate dealings, companies not only reduce legal risk but also contribute to safer, more sustainable urban development – a key concern after the tragic lessons of substandard, corruption-plagued construction.

In summary, Turkish companies can no longer confine anti-corruption efforts to defense and energy projects alone. Regulators and investigators (both domestic and foreign) are looking across the economy – from construction sites to hospital procurement, from digital finance platforms to real estate offices – for red flags of bribery and fraud. Boards in these sectors should reassess their risk maps, ensure industry-specific compliance guidance, and learn from recent scandals to preempt similar issues in their own operations. As enforcement broadens, any Turkish company in a government-facing or highly regulated sector must assume it could be the next target if controls are weak.

Europe Steps Up Enforcement: EU Regulations, Cross‑Border Cooperation, and Impact on Turkish Companies

While U.S. authorities have long dominated anti-corruption enforcement, the European Union and its member states are rapidly bolstering their own anti-bribery regimes – a trend with direct implications for Turkish businesses operating in Europe or with EU links. In 2025, Europe’s enforcement environment is marked by new legislation, unprecedented cross-border collaboration, and a resolve to hold companies (and individuals) accountable across jurisdictions.

EU’s New Anti‑Corruption Directive: In May 2023, the European Commission proposed a sweeping EU Anti-Corruption Directive, which by 2024 gained support in the European Parliament and Council and entered final trilogue negotiations. This directive (expected to be adopted in 2025) aims to harmonize anti-corruption laws across all 27 EU states, plugging gaps and raising standards. Key features include establishing common criminal offenses (with clear definitions of bribery, trading in influence, illicit enrichment, etc.) and requiring criminal liability for legal persons (companies) involved in corruption. Notably, the directive will oblige each member state to punish companies when a person in a “leading position” (e.g. a director or manager) engages in bribery for the company’s benefit. This extends even to cases where lack of supervision enabled the offense – mirroring the UK “failure to prevent” approach and ensuring corporates can be prosecuted independently of individual perpetrators. The directive also calls for stiffer penalties: EU countries would have to impose minimum prison sentences of 4–6 years for individuals convicted of serious corruption (up from current norms of 1–3 years) and consider banning corrupt individuals from holding office or directing companies. For companies, it mandates sanctions like fines, confiscation of profits, and debarment from public contracts Union-wide.

Perhaps most consequential is the directive’s broad jurisdictional reach. Each EU member state must assert jurisdiction not only when offenses occur on its soil or involve its nationals, but also when a bribe is paid for the benefit of a company established in that member state. In practice, this means a Turkish company with a subsidiary, branch, or significant operations in any EU country could be prosecuted in that country for bribery committed anywhere in the world, if the illicit conduct was intended to benefit the EU-based business. For example, if a Turkish construction firm’s affiliate in Germany bribes an official in Africa to win a contract that the German affiliate will perform, German prosecutors would have clear authority to charge the company under the new directive. Many major EU economies (Germany, France, etc.) already have some extraterritorial provisions, but the directive will standardize and potentially expand these powers across the entire EU, creating a far more unified and formidable enforcement front. Turkish companies, especially those with EU subsidiaries, will need to comply not just with Turkish law but with EU-level standards – effectively exporting tougher OECD-grade rules into their operations. The directive is expected to be transposed into national laws within 3 years of adoption, so by the late 2020s we will see a new wave of European enforcement that could ensnare Turkish firms that have, until now, faced little legal risk at home.

Unprecedented Cross‑Border Cooperation: European agencies are also joining forces as never before. On 20 March 2025, an “International Anti-Corruption Prosecutorial Taskforce” was established by the prosecutors of France, the UK, and Switzerland – three leading jurisdictions for foreign bribery cases. This trilateral taskforce is explicitly aimed at coordinating complex bribery investigations and sharing intelligence across borders. Its formation sends a strong message: as one official noted, it “reaffirms our collective commitment to tackling international bribery and corruption, wherever it occurs”. The taskforce’s initial goals include a senior “Leaders’ Group” to align strategy and a working group to propose joint investigative steps. Such formalized cooperation means, for instance, that a corruption case touching multiple jurisdictions (say, a scheme involving a French company paying bribes through Swiss banks to win a UK contract) can be jointly addressed rather than siloed. For Turkish companies, this European collaboration matters because many have ties to these jurisdictions – e.g. Turkish conglomerates raising funds in London, using Swiss private banks, or partnering with French firms. If a Turkish company is involved in a bribery scenario that one of these agencies is examining, the information will likely be shared among all three, even if U.S. enforcers are momentarily less active. Indeed, this taskforce was launched just as the U.S. announced its FCPA enforcement “pause,” underlining that Europe is gearing up to fill any void. The message to corporates is unmistakable: an act of bribery might be pursued by the SFO, PNF, or Swiss OAG (or all in concert), regardless of U.S. action. This increases the odds that wrongdoing with a European nexus will face legal consequences, not escape in a jurisdictional gap. Beyond this trio, the European Union’s agencies are also active: the new European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) is up and running, investigating fraud and corruption involving EU funds among its 22 participating states (though Turkey is not one, EPPO can probe any misuse of EU money in Turkey). Furthermore, Europol and Eurojust facilitate multinational evidence gathering on corruption cases (for example, coordinating Italy, Romania, and others in recent procurement-fraud stings).

EU Regulations and Blacklists: In addition to the directive, the EU in 2023–2025 has been mulling a sanctions regime for serious corruption, akin to the Global Magnitsky sanctions the U.S. uses to freeze assets of corrupt actors worldwide. If enacted, this could see corrupt officials or even companies (including Turkish ones) blacklisted from travel to or banking in Europe. The EU has also implemented the Whistleblower Protection Directive, requiring robust whistleblower channels and anti-retaliation measures in all large companies operating in the EU. This is prompting subsidiaries of Turkish companies in Europe to establish hotlines and compliance reporting systems that meet EU standards – these systems in turn can surface corruption issues that might have stayed hidden. Additionally, new EU procurement rules put greater onus on excluding bidders implicated in corruption, which could impact Turkish contractors seeking EU-funded projects or contracts in EU countries.

Overall, the European enforcement landscape is rapidly evolving to be more assertive and coordinated, closing past loopholes. For Turkish boards, this means the “Europe risk” is more acute than ever. A Turkish company that in the past might worry mainly about U.S. FCPA exposure must now also consider UK prosecutions (if it has UK business), and the possibility of an EU member state or joint taskforce action (if any EU interest is at stake). European regulators have shown they will hold even foreign firms to account: for instance, France’s PNF prosecuted Airbus (a European company) in 2020 but also investigated Halliburton and Panalpina (U.S. and Swiss firms) in prior years; Switzerland has prosecuted Swiss banks for laundering foreign bribes (e.g. in the Petrobras scandal); and the UK has enforced global settlements involving non-UK parent companies (like the Rolls-Royce DPA, which covered misconduct in multiple countries).

In practical terms, a Turkish construction or energy company with a subsidiary in the EU must anticipate that if a corruption issue arises, European regulators will coordinate and act. The company could face concurrent investigations in, say, Germany and France, plus queries from the EU Commission if EU development funds were involved. The days of playing one jurisdiction off another are ending – cooperation means evidence or whistleblower reports can quickly reach multiple enforcers. Turkish firms, therefore, need a “Fortress Europe” compliance strategy: ensure any EU-facing operations meet the highest anti-corruption standards (e.g. following UK Ministry of Justice guidance or ISO 37001 frameworks), and be prepared to engage with European regulators transparently if an issue emerges. As EU scrutiny rises, companies that demonstrate proactive compliance and cooperation will be in a far better position than those caught unprepared.

Implications for Turkish Boards and Executives: Extraterritorial Laws, Corporate Liability & Personal Accountability

The trends above carry several urgent lessons for Turkish boards, C-suites, and compliance officers. In essence, the anti-corruption enforcement net is tightening internationally, and it increasingly has extraterritorial reach into Turkish companies and individuals. Decision-makers must recognize that corruption, once considered an “accepted cost of doing business” in certain markets, now exposes the company – and its leadership – to serious legal and financial jeopardy across multiple jurisdictions.

Extraterritorial Reach – No Safe Harbor: Perhaps the most critical point is that laws like the U.S. FCPA and UK Bribery Act apply worldwide, far beyond their borders. The FCPA can hook a Turkish company through surprisingly minimal U.S. connections – for example, if a bribe is paid in U.S. dollars through a U.S. correspondent bank, if a Turk Telekom executive emails a co-conspirator via a server in the U.S., or if a Turkish firm is listed on a U.S. exchange or has an American subsidiary. The U.S. has aggressively asserted jurisdiction in such scenarios, making no distinction between American and foreign offenders. In fact, 9 of the 10 largest FCPA enforcement penalties on record have been against non-U.S. companies (including giants from Brazil, Europe, and Asia), and those companies have paid multi-billion-dollar fines. The UK Bribery Act is similarly far-reaching: any company that “carries on a business or part of a business” in the UK (even without a formal subsidiary) can be prosecuted for failing to prevent bribery anywhere in the world. This means if, say, a Turkish manufacturing firm has a UK sales office, and its agents bribe officials in another country, the SFO could charge the Turkish firm under UK law. With the upcoming EU directive, the entire EU will have a comparable reach, as discussed. Additionally, other OECD countries like France, Canada, and Germany have been upping enforcement of their foreign bribery laws, which also capture acts by local companies overseas and, in some cases, acts by foreign companies on their soil. Turkish executives must dispel any notion that “our laws aren’t enforced, so we’re safe” – enforcers elsewhere will fill the void. Turkey’s failure to punish foreign bribery at home actually increases the likelihood of foreign prosecutions, since U.S. and EU authorities are more inclined to step in when they see local impunity (DOJ’s new guidelines explicitly consider whether a foreign country is willing and able to pursue the case; if not, the DOJ is more likely to act). The bottom line: Turkish companies are subject to a patchwork of potent anti-bribery laws that effectively cover the globe. Board members must map out where their company operates, sells, or holds assets, and assume that any corruption incident in those areas could trigger enforcement by at least one capable jurisdiction – be it the U.S., UK, an EU country, or even multilateral development banks (which debar firms for misconduct).

Corporate Liability – The Company Is on the Hook: Modern enforcement heavily emphasizes corporate liability, meaning regulators will not hesitate to hold the company itself responsible for employees’ actions. The era of blaming a rogue employee is over – unless a firm can prove it had “adequate procedures” to prevent bribery (as a defense under UK law), the company will likely be held accountable. This has huge financial and reputational consequences: multi-million (even billion) dollar fines, compliance monitors imposed, and loss of contracts or financing. For Turkish boards, this means proactive compliance is not just ethical but fiduciary duty – protecting shareholder value by avoiding corporate indictments. Notably, Turkey’s own laws technically allow corporate criminal liability for corruption, but enforcement has been nil (no company has been convicted in 15 years domestically). However, OECD pressure may change this. If Turkey amends its laws or invigorates prosecutors, companies could suddenly face local charges (the OECD recommends Turkey clarify corporate liability and start using it). Boards should prepare by treating Turkish anti-corruption law as if it were being enforced at OECD standards, to avoid a rude awakening later. Moreover, global trends like the EU directive will force Turkey’s trading partners to demand higher compliance – e.g. an EU contractor might refuse to subcontract to a Turkish firm that lacks an anti-bribery program, for fear of liability. We also see corporate liability expanding into related areas: the UK’s new failure-to-prevent-fraud law and similar “failure to prevent money laundering” proposals indicate that companies will be expected to prevent a range of financial crimes or face punishment. Turkish executives should assume that any serious misconduct by their staff – bribery, fraud, bid-rigging, etc. – can lead to the corporation itself being prosecuted or blacklisted. This raises the stakes for robust internal controls, training, and a culture of integrity. The board’s role in overseeing compliance is critical; regulators often ask if the board received regular anti-corruption reports, whether it empowered a compliance officer, and if it took action on red flags. A complacent board could be seen as complicit, whereas an engaged board that builds a compliance framework can protect the company or at least earn leniency if a violation occurs.

Personal Liability – Executives in the Crosshairs: Enforcement agencies worldwide are increasingly holding individual executives and employees personally accountable for corruption. The days of negotiating only corporate settlements while individuals walk free are waning. The U.S. DOJ has re-emphasized that companies won’t get full cooperation credit unless they give up culpable individuals, and the DOJ and SEC did charge individuals in FCPA cases in 2024 for the first time in several years. Senior managers have gone to prison for FCPA offenses (e.g. a former Alstom executive served years in U.S. prison for bribes in Indonesia). In Europe too, prosecutors target individuals alongside companies – e.g. in the Unaoil case, the UK convicted multiple executives of bribery. For Turkish directors and officers, this means you personally could face criminal charges abroad if involved in a scheme. A CFO who falsifies books to hide bribes could be charged with both bribery and fraud by U.S. or EU authorities if they can establish jurisdiction. Even if you never set foot in the U.S., you could be tried in absentia elsewhere or subject to an Interpol Red Notice limiting travel. Moreover, the consequences for individuals are growing tougher: the proposed EU directive will require member states to impose minimum prison sentences of up to 4–6 years for corruption and to consider banning convicted individuals from executive positions. Many countries (including Turkey, under its 2020 law on public procurement) also allow blacklisting individuals and companies from government contracts if found guilty of corruption. Personal liability also extends to the boardroom through “duty of oversight” concepts – if boards knowingly ignore corruption red flags, they could face shareholder lawsuits or even charges (for instance, in some jurisdictions failing to prevent bribery can incur personal fines for directors). The recent Wirecard scandal in Germany and others have prompted discussions on holding non-executive board members accountable if compliance systems are willfully deficient. Turkish board members should thus treat anti-corruption compliance as an integral part of their governance responsibilities – not only to protect the company, but to protect themselves. Ensuring a strong compliance program, demanding internal audits, and swiftly addressing any misconduct can shield executives from allegations that they were willfully blind or negligent.

Changing Enforcement Priorities – What It Means for Strategy: The enforcement winds can shift with political changes (e.g. the Trump Administration’s temporary FCPA pullback vs. Europe’s surge). Companies must stay agile to these changes. For example, if the U.S. focuses FCPA cases on national security-related sectors (defense, critical minerals, etc.), a Turkish defense contractor might now face even higher scrutiny, whereas a low-level facilitation payment in another sector might currently be deprioritized by DOJ. But that does not mean it’s lawful – another country or a future U.S. administration could still act. The prudent course for boards is not to chase the lowest standard, but to adhere to the highest reasonable standard across all operations. Emphasize a zero-tolerance stance on bribery, even in regions where it’s considered “business as usual,” because enforcement can catch up unexpectedly. One should also note the rise of cross-border whistleblowing and media investigations (e.g. ICIJ leaks, investigative journalists exposing corruption). These often lead to enforcement even years later. Turkish leaders must foster a culture where issues are reported internally and addressed, rather than hoping they stay hidden – otherwise they may be exposed externally, to far worse effect.

In summary, Turkish boards and executives must act now to adapt to this rigorous enforcement environment. No company is too “local” to escape global anti-corruption laws, and no executive should assume they are beyond the reach of prosecutors. The costs – massive fines, jail time, loss of contracts, reputational ruin – are simply too high. On the positive side, those Turkish companies that proactively embrace strong compliance will not only avoid these pitfalls but also gain a competitive edge in international business (as clean, transparent partners). The next section provides concrete steps and best practices to achieve that.

Strengthening Compliance: Risk Mitigation Practices for 2025 and Beyond

To meet the 2025 global standards in anti-corruption compliance, Turkish companies should implement a comprehensive and up-to-date compliance program. This is not a box-ticking exercise, but a dynamic system tailored to the company’s risks and aligned with international best practices (such as the U.S. DOJ Guidance, UK Ministry of Justice principles, and ISO 37001:2025). Below are key risk mitigation and compliance practices Turkish boards and management should prioritize:

• Tone at the Top and Culture of Integrity: An ethical culture must start with leadership. Company directors and CEOs should regularly communicate a zero-tolerance policy for bribery and fraud, making clear that business results never justify unethical conduct. It is critical to empower compliance officers and ensure they have direct access to the board. The newly revised ISO 37001:2025 anti-bribery management system standard explicitly introduces the concept of “anti-bribery culture” – leadership actively championing transparency and accountability throughout the organization. Turkish firms are encouraged to benchmark against ISO 37001:2025 or obtain certification, as it provides a structured framework (risk assessments, controls, training, monitoring) and signals to partners that the company meets global anti-bribery norms. A strong culture also means protecting employees who refuse to pay bribes or who report concerns; incentivize ethical behavior (e.g. incorporate compliance objectives into performance evaluations and bonus criteria) and sanction unethical behavior consistently, regardless of rank.
• Robust Risk Assessment and Due Diligence: Companies should conduct regular corruption risk assessments enterprise-wide and for major projects. Identify high-risk markets, transactions, and third parties. For instance, operations involving public tenders, licenses, or customs in countries with high CPI corruption scores deserve special scrutiny. Once risks are mapped, apply thorough due diligence on third parties – agents, consultants, distributors, JV partners, contractors – especially those interfacing with officials on the company’s behalf. Many FCPA and UKBA cases stem from misconduct by third parties, so vetting and controlling them is crucial. This includes: background checks for red flags, contract clauses imposing anti-bribery obligations, approval of any commissions or gifts they give, and ongoing monitoring. In sectors like construction and healthcare where local agents or fixers are often used, consider reducing reliance on intermediaries or only engaging those who have been vetted and trained in your anti-corruption policies. Know Your Customer/Supplier procedures should also flag if a counterparty is government-owned or if owners are politically exposed persons (PEPs), triggering enhanced precautions. By tightening due diligence and only doing business with reputable, compliant partners, companies greatly reduce the chance of indirect liability for others’ bribes.
• Internal Controls and Recordkeeping: At the heart of preventing bribery is a system of internal financial and accounting controls that can catch or deter improper payments. Turkish companies should ensure they comply with the books-and-records provisions akin to the FCPA’s (which require accurate accounting of all transactions). This means no off-the-books accounts, false invoices, or misclassified expenses. Implement spend controls – e.g. require multiple approvals for high-risk expenditures like gifts, travel, entertainment or charitable donations in markets where the government is a client. Limit cash payments and encourage traceable payment methods. Use data analytics where possible to detect anomalies (for instance, flagging payments just below approval thresholds, or excessive “consulting fees” in a project). A strong procurement and finance policy can prevent many corrupt payments: require competitive bidding, document the justification for single-source awards, and maintain clear audit trails. As enforcement focuses on companies’ failure to supervise (mirroring “failure to prevent” standards), demonstrating tight internal controls can be a shield. Additionally, test your controls via periodic internal audits – possibly with the help of external auditors or forensic specialists – to ensure they’re working and to identify any weak spots.
• Training and Awareness: Regular, tailored training programs are essential to make policies effective. Employees (and third-party agents) should be educated on what constitutes bribery and how to handle common pressure situations. For example, sales teams need to know that providing lavish hospitality or gifts to a minister to win a contract is unacceptable and how to say no diplomatically; procurement staff should know how to spot and report vendor kickbacks; finance staff must understand how bribery can hide behind vague ledger entries. Conduct training in the local language and use real-life scenarios relevant to Turkey and the specific industry. High-risk groups and senior executives may need in-depth workshops. Also, ensure board members receive compliance training – tone at the top is set by a knowledgeable board. Encourage a speak-up culture in training: let employees know how to report concerns (e.g. via a hotline) and that the company will protect them from retaliation. With the EU Whistleblower Directive influencing best practices, having a confidential reporting channel and procedure to investigate tips is now a hallmark of compliance. Many major corruption scandals were unveiled by insiders – it’s far better for the company to hear it first internally and address it, than for an employee to go to prosecutors or the press because they lacked faith in internal mechanisms.
• Whistleblower Systems and Response: As noted, a trusted whistleblower system is a cornerstone of effective compliance. Turkish companies should establish a hotline (operated by an independent third party for anonymity, if possible) where employees, suppliers, or other stakeholders can report misconduct. Publicize the hotline and other reporting channels (email, ombudsman, etc.) and make clear top management supports their use. Develop a protocol for prompt, impartial investigation of any allegations – involving legal counsel and forensic experts as needed – and for reporting findings to the board. When wrongdoing is substantiated, respond decisively: discipline or terminate offenders, and remediate any control failures. In today’s environment, regulators often ask how a company handled internal reports; showing that you took a whistleblower’s tip seriously and self-remedied can significantly mitigate enforcement action. In some cases, self-reporting to authorities may be wise – under DOJ and SFO policies, voluntary disclosure, cooperation, and remediation can lead to reduced fines or even declinations. Boards should have a clear escalation policy: e.g. any credible allegation of bribery is reported to the Audit Committee and outside counsel to evaluate next steps. Remember, silencing or retaliating against whistleblowers is not only unethical but counter-productive – it drives the issue underground until it potentially explodes externally. Embrace whistleblowers as an early warning system that helps you fix problems before the authorities intervene.
• Monitoring, Auditing, and Continuous Improvement: Compliance is not a one-and-done effort; it requires continuous monitoring and improvement. Companies should conduct periodic compliance audits, especially in high-risk operations. For example, if you have a subsidiary in a country known for corruption, perform an annual anti-bribery audit there – review a sample of transactions, test employees’ knowledge, and verify that policies (like gift limits or third-party due diligence) are being followed. Many firms are turning to technology to assist in monitoring, such as automated third-party screening against sanctions and PEP databases, or transaction monitoring software that flags unusual payments. As enforcement becomes more data-driven, companies too should leverage data to stay ahead. Another emerging best practice is to track and incorporate regulatory updates and industry lessons – the compliance team should stay informed of enforcement actions (like those described in this report) and adapt policies accordingly. If a competitor got fined for a certain scheme, ask “Could that happen here?” and take preventive steps. Benchmarking against peers or global standards (for instance, using the ISO 37001:2025 updates which enhance due diligence and audit requirements) helps ensure your program is up-to-date. Regular reports to the board on compliance program effectiveness are advisable, and boards should ask probing questions – Are we allocating enough resources to compliance? What did the last risk assessment highlight? Have we tested our controls? Regulators in 2025 expect that a compliance program is a living, breathing system that evolves with the company’s risk profile.
• Prepare for External Investigations: Despite best efforts, if your company does become embroiled in a corruption investigation, advance preparation can make all the difference. Identify external counsel experienced in anti-corruption that you can call at short notice. Ensure digital records are well-managed and can be quickly preserved if needed (having a robust IT retention policy helps avoid accidental data deletions that could look like obstruction). Have a crisis communication plan so that if allegations hit the media, you respond responsibly and transparently. Many companies are also obtaining “compliance insurance” or at least mapping out how they would handle the financial impact of a large fine. While one hopes never to need these measures, being prepared to fully cooperate with authorities – by readily providing documents, having conducted your own swift internal probe, and demonstrating genuine intent to fix issues – can significantly reduce penalties. Under both U.S. and EU frameworks, a demonstrated good-faith compliance program and proactive cooperation can lead to leniency (for instance, under U.S. policy, an effective compliance program can reduce fines up to 50% under the Sentencing Guidelines, and the UK’s DPA regime heavily factors in cooperation).

By rigorously implementing the above practices, Turkish companies can meet the 2025 global compliance benchmark. This will not only mitigate enforcement risk but also yield positive business benefits: easier access to international capital (as lenders and investors increasingly require anti-bribery diligence), better relationships with multinational partners who demand compliance, and improved operational efficiency and reputation. As White & Case observed, even with the U.S. FCPA pause, “other authorities remain willing and able to act… The message to corporates is that there are other sheriffs in town, so compliance regimes must operate effectively and be updated to deal with evolving risks.”. In practical terms, this means Turkish boards must act now – if your compliance program hasn’t been reviewed or refreshed in a few years, 2025 is the time to do it. Incorporate the latest guidance, address the new sector risks, and ensure your program would impress an OECD evaluator or DOJ prosecutor if scrutinized.