Global Legal Post launches inaugural White-Collar Crime comparative guide covering corporate crime and enforcement across 22 jurisdictions
The Global Legal Post has launched its inaugural White-Collar Crime comparative guide, edited by Robert Wyld, a partner at Australian firm Johnson Winter Slattery. The guide brings together leading practitioners from 22 jurisdictions to examine how countries investigate, prosecute, and combat bribery, corruption, fraud, and other corporate white-collar crime offences. It is structured in a Q&A format to allow direct comparison across jurisdictions on topics including domestic laws and enforcement agencies, corporate and individual liability, internal investigations, whistleblower protections, self-reporting obligations, and emerging reforms. The guide also includes market insight chapters addressing current enforcement trends. In his editorial introduction, Wyld identifies as a recurring challenge the attribution of individual conduct to corporate entities, noting that jurisdictions have adopted markedly different approaches to this question. He also identifies whistleblower protections as a priority reform area, arguing that stronger protections in both the public and private sectors strengthen overall institutional integrity. The guide's authors are due to assemble at an invitation-only roundtable on 6 October in Copenhagen at the offices of contributor firm Gorrissen Federspiel, timed to coincide with the International Bar Association Annual Conference. The White-Collar Crime guide is one of 19 titles in the Law Over Borders series.
Why this matters
A practitioner-authored comparative guide of this scope matters to City lawyers because white-collar and corporate crime enforcement is increasingly cross-border in practice: investigations begun in one jurisdiction routinely require parallel advice on how a company's conduct is characterised in others, what self-reporting obligations exist, and how whistleblower evidence is treated. The guide's emphasis on corporate versus individual liability attribution reflects a live doctrinal debate relevant to English law, where the identification doctrine (the test for when a company is criminally liable for its controllers' acts) has been under reform pressure following amendments to the relevant legislative framework. For law students, comparative white-collar crime is a practice area that sits at the intersection of criminal, corporate, regulatory, and employment law, making it directly relevant to magic circle and US firm training programmes.
On the Ground
White-collar crime and investigations teams at London firms use comparative guides of this kind to advise multinational clients on their exposure across jurisdictions simultaneously, particularly in the early stages of an internal investigation when the company must decide whether and where to self-report. The guide's coverage of whistleblower protections is directly relevant to employment lawyers advising corporates on how to design internal reporting channels that comply with obligations in each market where they operate. A trainee on a cross-border investigations matter would be preparing jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction comparison tables on self-reporting requirements, summarising whistleblower protection regimes from local counsel input, and organising document review for disclosure across multiple legal systems.
Interview prep
Question you might get
“How does a London-based law firm manage a cross-border internal investigation where the company has potential exposure in multiple jurisdictions with different self-reporting obligations?”
Sign up free to see the full answer
A model answer you can lift into an interview — how to frame this story for a partner.
Sign up freeSources
My notes
saved