Black’s Law Dictionary[1] defines corruption as “a fiduciary’s or official’s use of a station or office to procure some benefit either personally or for someone else contrary to the right of others; an act carried out with the intent of giving some advantage inconsistent with official duties or the right of others.
Corruption in arbitration may emerge in different forms. The underlying contract which gave rise to the dispute referred to arbitration may have been procured through corrupt practices or it may present itself during the arbitral process, for instance allegations of corruption on the part of the tribunal, witnesses or counsel. This article is focused on the former and issues which may arise during the enforcement of such awards.
In an ideal world, and given the bindingness and finality of arbitral awards, a losing party ought to simply comply with the award. However, this is not always the case. Hence, where the losing party fails to comply with the award, a successful party would have to initiate recognition and enforcement proceedings.[2] Recognition and enforcement proceedings may however be delayed, postponed or defeated where the losing party challenges the award or opposes enforcement. Depending on the jurisdiction in which enforcement is sought, awards arising from contracts tainted with corruption may be held to be against public policy and therefore unenforceable.
