Canada: White Collar Defence And Investigations: 2016 Year In Review

Last Updated: February 15 2017
Article by Matthew Doak and Glen Jennings

Overall, 2016 Cannot Be Considered A Robust Year For The Prosecution Of White Collar Criminal Cases In Canada. There Was Little New Observable Activity In The Areas Of Foreign Corruption, Competition Or Quasi-Criminal Securities Prosecutions. However, There Were Still A Number Of Notable Developments And Decisions Over The Past Year That We Will Canvass In This Year-End Review.

Foreign Corruption

The SNC-Lavalin Related Prosecutions Still Dominate The Landscape Of Foreign Corruption Prosecutions In Canada.

In One Of Those Prosecutions, In An April 2016 Decision, The Supreme Court Of Canada Upheld The Immunity Status And Independence Of International Organizations By Rejecting An Attempt By A Group Of Accused Individuals To Compel Personnel Of The World Bank Group (An International Organization Based In Washington D.C.) To Appear In Court And Produce Various Documents.&Nbsp; The World Bank Group V Wallace, Et Al. Decision Arose In The Context Of A Criminal Proceeding Under The Corruption Of Foreign Public Officials Act.&Nbsp; The Decision Concluded That Personnel Of The World Bank Group Could Not Be Compelled To Attend In Court As A Result Of A &Ldquo;Personnel Immunity&Rdquo;, And Production Of World Bank Group Documents Could Not Be Compelled On The Basis Of An &Ldquo;Archival Immunity&Rdquo;.&Nbsp; Both Immunities Were Conferred In Canada Pursuant To Two Orders In Council And The Bretton Woods And Related Agreements Act.

Although Decided In The Context Of Specific Legislative Provisions, World Bank Group V Wallace Suggests More Generally That Courts Will Be Reluctant To Grant Production Of Documents In The Possession Of International Organizations Or Compel The Attendance Of Its Personnel In Court If The Organization Is Subject To An Immunity.

Numerous Other Individuals Continue To Face Charges In Connection With The Various SNC-Lavalin Prosecutions, As Well As The Company Itself, Which Indicated In 2015 That It Will Vigorously Defend Itself And Plead Not Guilty To The Charges Against It.

In One Non-SNC Development, A Canadian Man, Larry Kushniruk, Was Charged In Late-2016 With Allegedly Conspiring To Bribe Foreign Public Officials In Thailand For The Purpose Of Selling A Commercial Aircraft To Thai Airways.&Nbsp;&Nbsp;&Nbsp;&Nbsp;

To Date, There Has Been Little Jurisprudence Arising From Canada&Rsquo;S Corruption Of Foreign Public Officials Act.&Nbsp; In The History Of The Act, There Have Only Been Three Substantial Prosecutions Under The Act. &Nbsp;The Prosecutions Against Niko Resources Ltd. And Griffiths Energy Resulted In Fines Of $9.5 Million And $10.25 Million, Respectively.&Nbsp; The Prosecution Against Nazir Karigar Ultimately Led To A Sentence Of Three Years Imprisonment.&Nbsp; In Connection With The Case Against Nazir Karigar, The RCMP Were Seeking To Prosecute Three Foreign Nationals (Two Of U.S. Citizenship, And One Of U.K. Citizenship) Pursuant To Its Mandate To Investigate Allegations Of International Corruption.&Nbsp; We Are Not Aware Of Any Recent Developments In This Prosecution.

The Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act

2016 Was The First Full Year Where Most Companies Involved In The Extractive Sector Were Required To Comply With The New Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act By Internally Tracking Certain Payments To Governments And Reporting Those Payments Within 150 Days From Their Fiscal Year-End.&Nbsp; The Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act Came Into Force On June 1, 2015.

Entities Required To File Within 150 Days Of Their Fiscal Year-End Must Report Payments Made To Any Government In Canada Or In A Foreign State, Or To A Body That Performs Or Is Established To Perform A Government Power, Duty Or Function. All Reports Must Be Publically Posted And Canadian Parent Companies Are Responsible For Filing Reports On Behalf Of Their Subsidiaries.

Entities That Fail To Comply With Certain Provisions Of The Act, Including The Reporting And Publication Requirements, Are Guilty Of An Offence Punishable On Summary Conviction And Are Liable To A Fine Of Up To $250,000.&Nbsp; Not Surprisingly, There Are Not Yet Any Reported Prosecutions Under This Act.&Nbsp; 2017 Will Be An Interesting Year To Watch And See If There Are Any Prosecutions Arising From This Act.

The Competition Act

The Past Year Has Had Little Impact On The Progression Of Competition Law In Canada.&Nbsp; In Contrast, 2015 Was The Year That Will Likely Shape This Area Of Law For Some Time To Come.&Nbsp; There Were Two Large Criminal Conspiracy Cases That Ended In 2015 Without A Single Conviction, Despite Many Years And Likely Millions Of Dollars In Resources Being Devoted To Them.

Perhaps The Biggest Impact In 2016 Arising From The Failed Prosecutions In 2015 Relates To The Immunity And Leniency Programs Of The Competition Bureau As A Result Of The R V Nestle Canada Inc. Et Al. Decision.&Nbsp; In The Nestle Case, Justice Nordheimer Concluded That Settlement Privilege Did Not Extend To Certain Information That Had Been Exchanged Between The Crown And The Co-Operating Immunity And Leniency Applicants Prior To Executing Immunity And Leniency Agreements. Justice Nordheimer Ordered Disclosure To The Accused Of All Factual Information Provided To The Crown By The Co-Operating Parties.

The Decision Provided Important Clarification For All Future Co-Operating Parties. Claims Of Privilege Will Not Protect Factual Information That Must Be Provided Under The Immunity And Leniency Programs. Any Factual Information Conveyed To The Crown, Both Prior And Subsequent To The Granting Of Immunity Or Leniency, Including At The Very Earliest Proffer Stage, Will Have To Be Disclosed To Any Accused Parties Subsequently Facing A Criminal Prosecution.

The R V Nestle Canada Inc. Et Al. Decision Has Caused The Competition Bureau To Review Its Immunity And Leniency Programs And Consult With Various Industry Stakeholders.&Nbsp; In October 2016 John Pecman, The Commissioner Of Competition, Stated That He Expects To Release The Proposed Changes To The Immunity And Leniency Programs This Winter.

Securities Law

This Past Year Saw The Launch By The Ontario Securities Commission Of Its Office Of The Whistleblower That Will Oversee A Program Designed To Compensate And Protect Eligible Whistleblowers Who Provide Valuable Information Resulting In Enforcement Actions.&Nbsp; Compensation Of Whistleblowers Can Be Up To $5 Million Dollars Under The New Program.&Nbsp; The Program Follows In The Footsteps Of A Similar Program Instituted By The U.S. Securities And Exchange Commission (&Ldquo;SEC&Rdquo;).

In Quebec The Autorité Des Marchés Financiers Launched Their Own Program That Will Protect Whistleblowers; However, After Reviewing Various Whistleblower Programs From Around The World, It Has Chosen Not To Compensate Whistleblowers.

There Were A Number Of Significant Securities Law Decisions In 2016.&Nbsp; In Ontario Securities Commission V Tiffin1 The Ontario Securities Commission Brought A Quasi-Criminal Action Against The Accused For Allegedly Trading Securities Without Being Registered, Trading Without Filing A Prospectus, And Trading While Prohibited From Doing So.&Nbsp; The Accused Had Entered Into Some Private Loan Agreements And Provided Promissory Notes In Exchange.&Nbsp; The Court Found That The Loan Agreements Did Not Meet The Statutory Definition Of A &Ldquo;Security&Rdquo;.&Nbsp; All Charges Against The Accused Were Dismissed.&Nbsp; In Doing So, A Broad Interpretation Of The Term &Ldquo;Security&Rdquo; Sought By The Ontario Securities Commission Was Rejected In Favour Of A Definition That Took Into Consideration The Statutory Goals Of The Ontario Securities Act, And The Context Of The Particular Transaction At Issue.

In Beaudette V Alberta Securities Commission The Supreme Court Of Canada Rejected A Leave Application Arising From A Decision Of The Alberta Court Of Appeal That Upheld Certain Provisions Of The Alberta Securities Act. &Nbsp;Mr. Beaudette Alleged That S. 42 Of The Act Compelled Him To Provide Evidence To The Alberta Securities Commission, Which Then Had Authority Under S. 46 Of The Act To Provide That Evidence To Authorities In Foreign Jurisdictions. He Alleged That This Infringed His Right Against Self-Incrimination. The Court Of Appeal Found That These Provisions Did Not Violate The S. 7 Charter Right To Life, Liberty, And Security Of The Person As There Was Insufficient Evidence To Find A Charter Infringement In The Circumstances. A Charter Infringement Could Not Be Found On The Basis Of Mere Speculation That The Law Could Be Applied In A Charter-Abusive Manner. Furthermore, The Requirements Of Fundamental Justice Vary Based On Context And The Court Characterized The Intent Of The Act As The Valid Regulation Of The Securities Industry, Rather Than As A Statute Intended To Secure Evidence For Criminal Prosecutions.&Nbsp; While Mr. Beaudette Was Unsuccessful In His Appeal, The Court Of Appeal Left The Door Open To A Future Charter Challenge Grounded In An Evidentiary Record That Could More Conclusively Point To The Use Of Compelled Self-Incriminatory Evidence In A Foreign Prosecution.

A Pair Of Much Anticipated Insider Trading And Tipping Appeals Were Released Late In 2016 By The Ontario Divisional Court.&Nbsp; Both Of Those Decisions Demonstrated The Deferential Approach Taken By The Divisional Court To Ontario Securities Commission Enforcement Decisions.&Nbsp; The First Of Those Divisional Court Decisions, Released On October 26, 2016, Was In The Fiorillo V Ontario Securities Commission Matter.2 The Appellants Were Henry Fiorillo, Dennis Wing, And Kimberley Stephany, All Of Whom Were Found By The Ontario Securities Commission To Have Received Tips Of Material Non-Public Information About Certain Reporting Issuers From An Administrative Assistant At GMP Securities L.P., Eda Marie Agueci, And Subsequently Traded In Those Reporting Issuers Prior To The Information Becoming Public.&Nbsp; All Three Appeals Were Dismissed.

The Second Divisional Court Decision Was Released On December 2, 2016 In The Finkelstein Et Al. V Ontario (Securities Commission) Matter.&Nbsp; The Divisional Court Found That The Findings Of Liability Against Mitchell Finkelstein, Paul Azeff, Korin Bobrow, And Howard Jeffrey Miller Were Reasonable.&Nbsp; However, The Findings Against Man Kin Cheng Were Set Aside.

These Decisions Demonstrate A Recent Record Of Success By The Ontario Securities Commission That Has Not Been Matched South Of The Border Where The U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit, In The 2014 Decision Of&Nbsp; United States V Newman, Increased The Burden For Prosecutors In Insider Trading And Tipping Cases By Refining The Relevant &Ldquo;Personal Benefit&Rdquo; Test.&Nbsp; The Court In Newman Reversed Convictions On Downstream Tipees Because, Among Other Findings, The Tipees Did Not Possess Knowledge Of A Personal Benefit Derived From The Insider Up The Chain.&Nbsp; On December 6, 2016, The U.S. Supreme Court In Salman V United States Addressed One Aspect Of The &Ldquo;Personal Benefit&Rdquo; Test (Namely, The Type Of Benefit Required To Satisfy The Personal Benefit Test In The Context Of A Tip By An Insider To A Friend Or Family Member), But Did Not Disturb The Findings In Newman Regarding The Knowledge Requirement Of Downstream Tipees.&Nbsp; The Salman Decision Is An Important Insider Trading Win For The SEC, However Certain Findings In Newman May Continue To Cause Problems For The SEC In Future Tipping Cases.&Nbsp;

Panama Papers

International Headlines Were Dominated In 2016 With Stories About Data Leaks, But By Far The Most Significant Data Leak Was The Leak That Came To Be Known As The &Ldquo;Panama Papers&Rdquo;.&Nbsp; The Leak Occurred When The Law Firm Of Mossack Fonseca Was Hacked In What Has Been Described As The Largest Leak Of Data In History. &Nbsp;Mossack Fonseca Is Headquartered In Panama And Operates Under The Slogan Of &Ldquo;Wealth Management As You Deserve It&Rdquo;.&Nbsp; It Operates Across The World As An Incorporation Agent That Is Licensed In Various Tax Havens To Register Companies.&Nbsp; It Is Alleged To Have Assisted Its Clients In Placing Assets Offshore, Beyond The Reach Of Tax Authorities And Other Domestic Regulators.&Nbsp; The Revelations Have Proved Embarrassing For Notable Public Figures, Including Russian President Vladimir Putin And Former Prime Minister Of The United Kingdom David Cameron.&Nbsp; The Consequences Were Even Career Ending For The Former Prime Minister Of Iceland, Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson, Who Was Forced To Resign Following The Data Leak.

Corruption Perceptions Rankings

Each Year Transparency International Releases Its Corruption Perceptions Index.&Nbsp; Relying On Data Provided By Independent Institutions, The Corruption Perceptions Index Ranks A Large Proportion Of The Countries In The World Based On The Degree Of Corruption Found In Their Public Institutions.&Nbsp; Canada Consistently Ranks High In The Index, And 2016 Was No Exception.&Nbsp; It Came In As The 9Th Least Corrupt Nation In The World, With A Score Of 82/100.&Nbsp; In Comparison, The World Collectively Received A Failing Grade With The Average Of All Countries Surveyed Amounting To A Score Of 43/100.

International Corruption And Bribery Proceedings And Investigations

There Have Been A Number Of Prosecutions And Investigations In Foreign Jurisdictions For Corruption And Bribery Offences.&Nbsp; Those Developments Include The Following:

  • In December The Largest Combined Global Foreign Bribery Resolution Of At Least $3.5 Billion Was Reached Against Construction Conglomerate Odebrecht S.A. And Its Related (And Majority-Owned) Petrochemical Company Braskem S.A. The Charges Stemmed From Allegations In The U.S., Brazil, And Switzerland Of A Sophisticated And Extensive Bribery Scheme That Persisted For More Than A Decade Across The World, And Resulted In The Payment Of Hundreds Of Millions In Bribes.&Nbsp; The Scheme Was Particularly Egregious As It Was Run Through A Secretive Off-Book Department In Odebrecht (Which Came To Be Known As The Department Of Bribery By The Authorities) Which Apparently Reported Up To The Top Of The Odebrecht Hierarchy.
  • Dmitrij Harder, A Russian Citizen Living In Pennsylvania, Pleaded Guilty To Two Counts Of Violating The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&Ldquo;FCPA&Rdquo;). Harder Was Charged With Bribing An Official With The European Bank For Reconstruction And Development. Sentencing Was Set For November 3, 2016 With The Potential For A Prison Term Of Up To Ten Years.
  • Biopharmaceutical Company Astrazeneca PLC Has Reportedly Settled Charges&Nbsp; Brought Against It By The SEC For Alleged Violations Of The FCPA Relating To Deficiencies In Its Internal Controls.&Nbsp; The Charges Stemmed From Payments That Were Allegedly Made By Its Chinese And Russian Subsidiaries To Health Care Providers In Return For Purchases Of The Company&Rsquo;S Drugs.&Nbsp; In Settling The Charges, The Company Made No Admission Of Liability And Agreed To Pay The SEC $4.325 Million In Disgorgement, $822,000 In Prejudgment Interest, And A Penalty Of $375,000.
  • Global Beverage Behemoth Anheuser-Busch Inbev Settled Charges Against It That Were Brought By The SEC By Paying $6 Million. The SEC Alleged That The Company Used Third-Party Sales Promoters To Make Improper Payments To Indian Government Officials. &Nbsp;The SEC Also Alleged That The Company Took Certain Actions That Restricted The Whistleblower Who Reported The Misconduct.
  • Ukrainian Company Information Computer Systems Was Debarred For 22&Frac12; Years For Involvement In A Plan To Rig Contracts Worth Approximately U.S. $43 Million. The Company&Rsquo;S President And Vice-President Were Debarred For 11&Frac12; Years And 8&Frac12; Years, Respectively.
  • The U.S. Department Of Justice (&Ldquo;DOJ&Rdquo;) And The SEC Collected $397.6 Million From Vimpelcom Limited To Settle Allegations That The Company And Its Subsidiary Bribed A Uzbekistani Government Official Between 2006 To 2012. Vimpelcom Was Alleged To Have Conspired To Violate The FCPA&Rsquo;S Books And Records And Anti-Bribery Provisions And To Have Violated The FCPA&Rsquo;S Internal Control Provisions. The Company Paid $230.1 Million To The DOJ And $167.5 Million In Disgorgement And Pre-Judgment Interest To The SEC.
  • Dubai Resident James Mcclung Was Sentenced To A Year And A Day In Prison. The Sentence Comes After The Former Senior Vice-President Of Louis Berger International, A Construction Management Company, Was Convicted Under The FCPA Of Bribing Officials Over A Period Of Ten Years To Win Contracts In Vietnam, India, Indonesia, And Kuwait.
  • Pharmaceutical Giant Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. Agreed In December To Pay Hefty Criminal And Regulatory Penalties For Violations Of The FCPA In Ukraine, Mexico, And Russia.&Nbsp; The Conduct Involved Bribery Of Government Officials And Failing To Implement Proper Internal Controls.&Nbsp; The Fines Included A $283 Million Criminal Fine And A $236 Million Disgorgement To The SEC.&Nbsp; The Company Was Given Credit For Certain Remediating Actions (Including Removing Those In The Company Who Were Involved In The Violatons) To Ensure There Is No Reoccurrence Of The Offending Conduct In The Future.

While The U.S. Continues To Be Active In White Collar Prosecutions, Canada Appears To Have Taken A Slight Pause In 2016.&Nbsp; Despite This Slowdown In Activity In Canada, Various Statements From Canadian Regulators And Enforcement Agencies Would Suggest That 2017 Will Be A Busy Year, Perhaps Making Up For The Rather Quiet Year That Was 2016.

Footnotes

1 Glen Jennings And Alex Zavaglia, Partners In The Toronto Office Of Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, Represented The Accused In This Proceeding.

2 Usman Sheikh, Partner In The Toronto Office Of Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, Acted As The Prosecutor For The Ontario Securities Commission At The Tribunal.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Events from this Firm
14 Sep 2017, Seminar, Birmingham, UK

Has Cloud replaced traditional outsourcing models? We will compare cloud to outsourcing, consider whether they have effectively become the same thing for many solutions and assess some of the advantages and disadvantages of each model.

18 Sep 2017, Seminar, London, UK

Our annual event as part of the London Design Festival is now in its fifth year. We would be delighted if you are able to join us again.

21 Sep 2017, Seminar, London, UK

Has Cloud replaced traditional outsourcing models? We will compare cloud to outsourcing, consider whether they have effectively become the same thing for many solutions and assess some of the advantages and disadvantages of each model.

 
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.