Cross-border exposure: PNG, Indonesia, Singapore and the AFP

Why conduct by your people offshore can become an Australian problem, how the AFP coordinates with foreign agencies, and what a global resolution looks like.

By Bill Doogue, Director and Accredited Criminal Law Specialist, Doogue + George

For companies operating across the region, the most under-appreciated risk in the AFP’s April 2026 guideline is not what happens in Australia. It is what happens offshore. Australia’s foreign bribery regime reaches conduct by your associates in other countries, and the AFP increasingly works hand in glove with foreign agencies. A payment made by a local agent in Port Moresby, Jakarta or Singapore can become an Australian criminal exposure, and a resolution in one country can pull the others, and Australia, along with it.

The offshore reach of the failure-to-prevent offence

Since 8 September 2024, an Australian company can commit the offence of failing to prevent foreign bribery by an associate, under section 70.5A of the Criminal Code. The word doing the work is “associate”. It is broad. It captures employees, contractors, agents, subsidiaries and others performing services on the company’s behalf. The conduct does not have to occur in Australia, and the company does not have to know about it. Unless the company can prove it had adequate procedures in place, it is exposed to the bribery of a foreign official carried out by someone acting for it, wherever in the world that happens.

For a business with operations, joint ventures or agents in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia or Singapore, that is a significant shift. The local fixer, the agent who “gets things done”, the joint venture partner who manages the government relationship, are all potential associates. Their conduct can land on the Australian parent.

Parallel investigations and a coordinated AFP

The same conduct can attract the attention of more than one country at once. A company might face a local investigation in the country where the payment was made and an AFP investigation in Australia, sometimes prompted by the company self-reporting in more than one place. The AFP does not treat these in isolation. It works with international partners throughout an investigation, including to de-conflict in relation to the individuals and entities involved.

That cooperation is institutional, not ad hoc. The AFP is a member of the International Foreign Bribery Taskforce, alongside agencies including the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United Kingdom Serious Fraud Office and National Crime Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and New Zealand’s Police and Serious Fraud Office. Information moves between these agencies. A company should assume that what it discloses in one jurisdiction may inform an investigation in another.

To be frank other jurisdictions have a much more robust approach than Australia (which has a reputation for dragging its heels on these issues). Having been involved in matters where the Singaporean Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau is involved gives me an appreciation for how far more advanced their processes are (and also their powers).

What a global resolution looks like

Where a corporation is genuinely cooperating, the AFP will try to work with its domestic and international partners towards a global resolution, rather than leaving the company to be resolved separately, and repeatedly, in each country. The guideline recognises that the available mechanisms differ from country to country, so the shape of any global resolution has to be worked out case by case.

Two practical features are worth knowing. First, the proceeds relinquished under a foreign resolution can, through specific mechanisms, be directed back to Australia, so resolving offshore does not necessarily remove the Australian dimension. Second, related corporate entities, such as subsidiaries, can be liable for the same underlying conduct, so a resolution that deals with one entity may not close off exposure for another. Structuring and sequencing across jurisdictions therefore matters a great deal.

Where the real risk sits for regional operators

In practice, the exposure for regionally active companies is concentrated in third parties. Agents, consultants, intermediaries and joint venture partners are the channel through which most foreign bribery risk flows, precisely because they operate at arm’s length and in environments the parent does not control day to day. The failure-to-prevent offence is built around that reality, and so is the adequate procedures defence, which expects risk-based due diligence on exactly those relationships.

The uncomfortable truth for many groups is that their highest-risk relationships are the ones they understand least, in the jurisdictions where they have the least visibility. That is where attention belongs before a problem arises, not after.

Having regular due diligence on the ground in those environments is the best safeguard. Meeting people, taking statements and providing them to the board on an ongoing basis is part of the answer.  You can get most people to give you a statement whether they are a politician or a salesman (or both) and sometimes that gives you real clarity on what has been going on

What to do

1. Map the third-party risk across every jurisdiction you operate in, with particular focus on agents, intermediaries and joint venture partners in higher-risk markets.
2. Tailor adequate procedures to each market, rather than running a single head-office policy that does not reflect local risk. The defence depends on procedures that are proportionate to the actual risk.
3. Coordinate advice across jurisdictions early. If a problem surfaces in one country, assume the others, and Australia, may follow, and plan the response as a whole rather than country by country.
4. Take local law advice on the foreign-law exposure. This article is about the Australian dimension and the AFP’s approach; the law in PNG, Indonesia, Singapore and elsewhere is a separate question that must be advised on locally. 

Having a good network of lawyers that you know and can trust is important

Doogue + George acts in cross-border bribery and corruption matters and works with trusted counsel in the region. If your business has exposure across PNG, Indonesia, Singapore or elsewhere in the region, we can help you assess and coordinate it before it becomes an investigation in more than one country.

Frequently asked questions

Can my company be liable in Australia for bribery that happened overseas?

Yes. The failure-to-prevent offence captures foreign bribery by an associate, including offshore conduct, unless the company can prove it had adequate procedures in place. The company does not need to have known about the conduct.

Who counts as an associate?

It is broad, and includes employees, contractors, agents, subsidiaries and others performing services on the company’s behalf. Third-party agents and joint venture partners are a common source of risk.

Does the AFP share information with foreign agencies?

Yes. The AFP works with international partners and is a member of the International Foreign Bribery Taskforce. Assume that disclosures in one jurisdiction may inform investigations in another.

Can a single resolution cover more than one country?

Where the company is genuinely cooperating, the AFP will try to work towards a global resolution. The mechanisms differ by country, so this is worked out case by case, and related entities may still carry separate exposure.

About the author

Doogue + George has acted in some of Australia’s most significant bribery and corruption matters. Bill Doogue is ranked by Doyle’s Guide as one of the preeminent criminal defence lawyers in Australia and is listed in Best Lawyers for criminal law.

Bill is a consultant for the firm of Lewing Lowing Sullivan in Port Moresby (Papua New Guinea) in relation to bribery and corruption and transnational crime, advising on the Australian and cross-border dimensions of regional white collar matters.