Uzbekistan has developed an extensive anti-corruption framework, including a statutory compliance service introduced in 2026, yet its preventive duties apply almost exclusively to state bodies and state-owned enterprises. Private companies face neither an obligation to maintain anti-corruption compliance programmes nor any legal benefit for doing so, because Uzbek law does not hold legal entities liable for corruption offences. This article compares how the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union link corporate liability to compliance: through prosecutorial incentives for self-reporting and effective programmes, through a statutory “adequate procedures” defence, and through criminal or administrative liability with compliance as a mitigating factor. Drawing on UNCAC Article 26 and on German and Italian administrative models, it argues that Uzbekistan can create effective incentives for private-sector compliance without introducing corporate criminal liability. It proposes administrative liability of legal entities for failure to prevent corruption, a compliance defence measured against a published standard, a corporate self-reporting exemption, mandatory internal reporting channels and a phased introduction through public procurement.
Corporate Liability and Compliance Incentives in Uzbekistan: Lessons from The United States, The United Kingdom and The European Union
DOI:
Keywords:
Abstract
References
Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Uzbekistan, official Telegram channel, post No. 154781 (12 Oct. 2026); see also Yer hujjatlarini rasmiylashtirish uchun 840 ming dollar talab qilgan shaxs ushlandi, Kun.uz (12 Oct. 2026).
Toshkentda ko’p qavatli uy qurishga ruxsat olib berish uchun $900 ming so’raganlar ushlandi, Gazeta.uz (9 Sept. 2025).
OECD, Baseline Report of the Fifth Round of Monitoring of Anti-Corruption Reforms in Uzbekistan (2024), Indicator 9.2.
Id.
Id., Executive Summary (Business integrity; Protection of whistleblowers).
Decree of the President No. PF-6257 (6 July 2021), Annex 1, item 26.
Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. LRU-931 “On Conflict of Interests” (5 June 2024), art. 1.
See, e.g., IT Park Receives Anti-Corruption Management System Compliance Certification, IT Park, https://www.it-park.uz/en/itpark/news/it-park-receives-anti-corruption-management-system-compliance-certification; Uzbekistan Airways Employees Complete ISO Compliance Training, Uzbekistan Airways, https://www.uzairways.com/en/press-center/news/uzbekistan-airways-employees-complete-iso-compliance-training.
Deputy Attorney General, Guidelines for Investigations and Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) (9 June 2025); Exec. Order No. 14209 (10 Feb. 2025).
Bribery Act 2010, c. 23, s. 7; Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, s. 199.
Directive (EU) 2026/1021 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2026 on combating corruption, OJ L, 11.5.2026.
Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. ZRU-419 “On Combating Corruption” (3 Jan. 2017), as amended by Law No. ZRU-1155 (22 June 2026), lex.uz/docs/3088008.
Id., arts. 4–5.
Decree of the President No. PF-5729 (27 May 2019).
Decree of the President No. DP-6013 (29 June 2020), lex.uz/docs/5148538.
Decree No. PF-6257, supra note 6, Annex 1, item 26.
Law No. ZRU-1155 (22 June 2026), amending ZRU-419, supra note 12, art. 7.
ZRU-419, supra note 12, art. 8³.
LRU-931, supra note 7 (in force 6 Dec. 2024), lex.uz/en/docs/6968729.
Id., art. 1.
Id., arts. 5, 7.
ZRU-419, supra note 12, art. 20.
See Sharafiddin Eshboev, Analysis of the Anti-Corruption Strategy-2030 of Uzbekistan, 3 Int’l J. Stud. Advanced Educ., no. 7, July 2024, at 33, 35 (observing that the Strategy’s entrepreneurship direction consists of “general words” rather than specific tasks).
Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan (22 Sept. 1994), art. 17, lex.uz/docs/111457.
Id., arts. 210–212.
Id., arts. 192⁹, 192¹⁰.
Id., art. 211 (final paragraph).
ZRU-419, supra note 12, art. 27(3).
OECD, supra note 3, Indicator 9.2.
New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co. v. United States, 212 U.S. 481 (1909).
15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1, 78dd-2, 78dd-3.
15 U.S.C. § 78m(b)(2)(A)–(B).
Foreign Extortion Prevention Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1352 (enacted 22 Dec. 2023).
Jennifer Arlen & Reinier Kraakman, Controlling Corporate Misconduct: An Analysis of Corporate Liability Regimes, 72 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 687 (1997).
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 8B2.1, 8C2.5(f).
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-28.300 (Factors to Be Considered) and § 9-28.800 (Corporate Compliance Programs).
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Criminal Division, Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (updated Sept. 2024).
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Corporate Enforcement Policy (10 Mar. 2026) (announced by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche); see DOJ Unveils Uniform Corporate Criminal Enforcement Policy, Snell & Wilmer, https://www.swlaw.com/publication/doj-unveils-uniform-corporate-criminal-enforcement-policy/.
Memorandum from Matthew R. Galeotti, Head of the Criminal Division, U.S. Dep’t of Justice (12 May 2025) (revising the Criminal Division Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy).
Exec. Order No. 14209, supra note 9.
Guidelines for Investigations and Enforcement of the FCPA, supra note 9.
Kimberly D. Krawiec, Cosmetic Compliance and the Failure of Negotiated Governance, 81 Wash. U. L.Q. 487 (2003).
Brandon L. Garrett, Too Big to Jail: How Prosecutors Compromise with Corporations (Harvard Univ. Press 2014).
Miriam Hechler Baer, Governing Corporate Compliance, 50 B.C. L. Rev. 949 (2009); Sean J. Griffith, Corporate Governance in an Era of Compliance, 57 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 2075 (2016).
Bribery Act 2010, c. 23, ss. 1, 2, 6.
Id., s. 7(1).
Id., s. 8.
Id., s. 7(5); s. 12.
Id., s. 11(3).
Id., s. 7(2).
Id., s. 9.
Ministry of Justice, The Bribery Act 2010: Guidance about Procedures which Relevant Commercial Organisations Can Put into Place to Prevent Persons Associated with Them from Bribing (Mar. 2011).
R v Skansen Interiors Ltd (Southwark Crown Court, Feb. 2018); see CPS Secures First Conviction for Failure to Prevent Bribery, Law Society Gazette (2018), https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/cps-secures-first-conviction-for-failure-to-prevent-bribery/5065201.article.
Crime and Courts Act 2013, sch. 17.
Serious Fraud Office, Corporate Guidance (24 Apr. 2025); see UK Serious Fraud Office Issues New Self-Reporting and Corporate Cooperation Guidance, WilmerHale (2 May 2025), https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/insights/client-alerts/20250501-uk-serious-fraud-office-issues-new-self-reporting-and-corporate-cooperation-guidance.
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, c. 56, s. 199; Home Office, Guidance to Organisations on the Offence of Failure to Prevent Fraud (Nov. 2024).
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, s. 196.
See generally Jeremy Horder & Peter Alldridge (eds.), Modern Bribery Law: Comparative Perspectives (Cambridge Univ. Press 2013).
Law Commission, Corporate Criminal Liability: An Options Paper (10 June 2022).
United Nations Convention against Corruption, 31 Oct. 2003, 2349 U.N.T.S. 41, art. 26; see UNODC, UNCAC Signature and Ratification Status, https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/corruption/ratification-status.html (Uzbekistan: accession, 2008).
Directive (EU) 2026/1021 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2026 on combating corruption, OJ L, 11.5.2026, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2026/1021/oj.
Id., art. 13.
Id., art. 14.
Id., art. 16.
See generally Mark Pieth & Radha Ivory (eds.), Corporate Criminal Liability: Emergence, Convergence, and Risk (Springer 2011).
Gesetz über Ordnungswidrigkeiten [OWiG], §§ 30, 130.
Bundesgerichtshof [BGH], 9 May 2017, 1 StR 265/16.
Decreto Legislativo 8 giugno 2001, n. 231, arts. 5–7.
Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 Oct. 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law, OJ L 305, 26.11.2019, arts. 8, 19.
OECD, supra note 3, Executive Summary (Protection of whistleblowers).