ILLICIT FINANCIAL GAINS IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION: THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL’S DUTY

Öz

The confidentiality of arbitration proceedings is paramount, as it is a fundamental principle that safeguards the privacy of the parties involved. However, this confidentiality that arbitration affords can also, on occasion, serve to obscure criminal activities. This can give rise to considerable risks of illicit financial gain within arbitration. Arbitral tribunals operate without a specific regulatory framework explicitly tailored to address issues that may arise from underlying contract in dispute. This article examines how arbitral tribunals address potential misconduct in two distinct scenarios. The first scenario considers cases where the tribunal’s jurisdiction is contested, resulting in a determination that the underlying contract is invalid under the applicable legal framework. In such circumstances, the tribunal is tasked with navigating the implications of this invalidity while upholding the integrity of the arbitration process. The second scenario pertains to instances where the underlying contract is deemed valid yet entangled with illicit financial activities. In this instance, the tribunal is confronted with a pivotal decision: whether to invoke the rules of international public order or to apply mandatory rules from a jurisdiction other than that which governs the contract. If the tribunal uncovers evidence of illicit activities, it may withdraw from the case or declare the contract invalid by invoking principles of international public policy and foreign mandatory regulations. This study examines these potential responses, elucidating the tribunal’s role in balancing confidentiality and the imperative of addressing and preventing criminal conduct during arbitration proceedings.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• International commercial arbitration
• confidentiality
• illicit financial activities
• public policy
• kompetenz-kompetenz

Uluslararası Ticari Tahkimde Yasadışı Mali Kazançlar: Hakem Heyetinin Görevi

Öz

Tahkim yargılamalarının gizliliği, ilgili tarafların mahremiyetinin korunmasını sağlayan temel bir kural olduğundan büyük önem taşımaktadır. Bununla birlikte, tahkimin sağladığı gizlilik, zaman zaman suç faaliyetlerinin tespit edilmesini de engelleyebilmektedir. Bu durum, tahkim bağlamında yasadışı mali kazanç riskine yol açabilmektedir. Bu makale, hakem heyetlerinin böyle bir hususla karşılaşmasını iki durum özelinde incelemektedir. İlk durum, hakem heyetinin davaya bakma yetkisine itiraz edildiği ve bunun sonucunda altta yatan esas sözleşmenin uygulanacak hukuk bağlamında geçersiz olmasının ele alınmasıdır. Bu gibi durumlarda, hakem heyeti, tahkim sürecinin bütünlüğünü korurken bu geçersizliğin sonuçlarını yönetmekle görevlendirilmektedir. İkinci durum, altta yatan sözleşmenin geçerli kabul edildiği ancak yasadışı mali faaliyetlerle iç içe geçtiği durumlarla ilgilidir. Bu durumda, hakem heyetinin uluslararası kamu düzeni kurallarına mı başvuracağı yoksa sözleşmenin tabi olduğu yargı alanından başka bir yargı alanının emredici kuralları mı uygulanacağı sorusu gündeme gelmektedir. Bu çalışma, tahkim yargılamasında yasadışı mali faaliyetlere karşılaşan hakem heyetinin bu süreçte nasıl hareket etmesi gerektiği ve gizlilik ile suçu bildirme yükümlülüğü arasındaki rolü incelenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Uluslararası ticari tahkim
• gizlilik
• yasadışı mali faaliyetler
• kamu düzeni
• kompetenz-kompetenz

Kaynakça

1. Anusornsen V, Arbitrability and Public Policy in Regard to the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Award in International Arbitration: The United States, Europe, Africa, Middle East and Asia (Golden Gate University 2012) (Master’s thesis).
2. Betz K, Proving Bribery, Fraud and Money Laundering in International Arbitration (Cambridge University Press 2017) 3-4.
3. Blackaby N, Partasides C, Redfern A, and Hunter M, Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (5th edn, Oxford University Press 2009).
4. Born GB, International Commercial Arbitration (Wolters Kluwer 2021).
5. Buchanan MA, ‘Public Policy and International Commercial Arbitration’ (1988) 26(1) American Business Law Journal 511.
6. Bühring-Uhle C, Kirchhoff L, and Scherer G, Arbitration and Mediation in International Business (2nd edn, Kluwer International Law 2006).
7. Carbonneau TE, The Law and Practice of Arbitration (Juris 2012).
8. Chaikin, D, ‘Commercial Corruption and Money Laundering: A Preliminary Analysis’ (2008) 15(3) Journal of Financial Crime 269-271.

9. De Silva GJC, Transnational Public Policy in International Arbitration (Queen Mary College, University of London 2007) (unpublished doctoral thesis).
10. Fry JD, ‘Desordre Public International under the New York Convention: Wither Truly International Public Policy’ (2009) 8(1) Chinese Journal of International Law 81.
11. Gaillard E and Savage J, Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 1999).
12. Gibson CS, ‘Arbitration, Civilization and Public Policy: Seeking Counterpoise between Arbitral Autonomy and the Public Policy Defense in View of Foreign Mandatory Public Law’ (2009) 113(1) Penn State Law Review 1227.
13. Giordani T, Allegations of Criminal Conduct in International Commercial Arbitration (University of Helsinki 2017) (unpublished master’s thesis).
14. Ghodoosi F, International Dispute Resolution and the Public Policy Exception (Routledge 2018).
15. Goldberg SB, Sander FEA, Rogers NH, and Cole SR, Dispute Resolution: Negotiation, Mediation and Other Processes (6th ed, Wolters Kluwer 2012).
16. Hedberg CC, International Commercial Arbitration and Money Laundering (Uppsala Universitet 2016) (master’s thesis).
17. Kleinheisterkamp J, ‘The Myth of Transnational Public Policy in International Arbitration’ (2023) 71(1) The American Journal of Comparative Law 98-141.
18. Lalive P, ‘Transnational (or Truly International) Public Policy and International Arbitration’ in Pieter Sanders (ed), Comparative Arbitration Practice and Public Policy in Arbitration (Kluwer International Law 1987) 258.
19. Mayer P, ‘Effect of International Public Policy in International Arbitration’ in Julian DM Lew and Loukas A Mistelis (eds), Pervasive Problems in International Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 2006) 61.
20. Mayer P, ‘International Public Policy, Related Concepts and Legal Regimes’ in Lauro Da Gama E Sozua Junior, Maria Ines Sola and Patrich Thieffry (eds), Navigating the New Contents of International Public Policy – Compliance in Environment and Human Rights (ICC Institute Dossiers 2023) 92-98.
21. Mayer P, ‘Must Justice be a Goal for the Arbitrator?’ (2021) 37(2) Arbitration International 503, 504.
22. McDougall AL, ‘International Arbitration and Money Laundering’ (2005) 20(1) American University International Law Review 1021.
23. Mistelis LA, ‘Arbitrability - International and Comparative Perspectives’ in Loukas A Mistelis and Stavros L Brekoulakis (eds), Arbitrability: International and Comparative Perspectives (Kluwer International Law 2009) 1.
24. Mitchell McBride, ‘Money Laundering’ (2020) 57 American Criminal Law Review 1045.
25. Mourre A, ‘Arbitration and Criminal Law: Reflections on the Duties of the Arbitrator’ (2006) 22 Arbitration International.
26. Noussia K, Confidentiality in International Commercial Arbitration - A Comparative Analysis of the Position under English, US, German and French Law (Springer 2010).
27. Park WW, ‘The Arbitrator’s Jurisdiction to Determine Jurisdiction’ (Boston University School of Law Public Law & Theory Papers Series 2007) 1.
28. Paulsson J, The Idea of Arbitration (Oxford University Press 2013).
29. Puig S and Strezhnev A, ‘Affiliation Bias in Arbitration: An Experimental Approach’ (Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 16-31, 2016) 1.
30. Rosen JA, ‘Arbitration Under Private International Law: The Doctrines of Separability and Competence de la Competence’ (1993) 17(1) Fordham Law Journal 599.
31. Sayed A, Corruption in International Trade and Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer International Law 2004).
32. Schroth PW, ‘Bank Confidentiality and the War on Money Laundering in the United States’ (1994) 42 American Journal of Comparative Law 369.
33. Schott PA, ‘Reference Guide to Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism’ https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/982541468340180508/pdf/634980WP0Refer00Box0361517B0PUBLIC0.pdf accessed August 11, 2024.
34. Ortolani P, ‘Application for Setting Aside as Exclusive Recourse against Arbitral Award’ in Ilias Bantekas, Pietro Ortolani, Shahla Ali, Manuel A Gomez, and Michael Polkinghorne (eds), UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration: A Commentary (Cambridge University Press 2020) 893.
35. Youssef K, ‘The Death of Inarbitrability’ in Loukas A Mistelis and Stavros L Brekoulakis (eds), Arbitrability: International and Comparative Perspectives (Kluwer International Law 2009) 47.