Anti-Corruption 2025 Comparisons

• The Inter-American Convention Against Corruptionwas signed in Caracas on 29 March 1996 and ratified by Colombia through Law 412 of 1997. This convention aims to promote and strengthen mechanisms to prevent, detect, sanction, and eradicate corruption, as well as foster co-operation among member states to ensure the effectiveness of anti-corruption measures and actions.
• The United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) was adopted on 31 October 2003 and ratified by Colombia through Law 970 of 2005. Its objectives include strengthening measures to prevent and combat corruption more effectively, facilitating international co-operation and technical assistance in the fight against corruption, and promoting integrity in public affairs management.
• The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention was adopted in Paris on 31 November 1997 and ratified by Colombia through Law 1573 of 2012. This instrument focuses on combating the bribery of foreign public officials, a crime that undermines good governance and distorts competitive conditions in international trade.

These conventions reinforce Colombia’s strategy to prevent and punish corruption both domestically and internationally.

The main national regulations applicable to anti-corruption are Law 1474 of 2011, Law 2195 of 2022 and the Colombian Criminal Code (Law 599 of 2000). All relevant corruption offences are laid down in such regulations.

From an administrative standpoint, the Superintendence of Companies has issued Chapter XIII of the Basic Legal Circular regulating the implementation of a business transparency and ethics programme.

From an administrative standpoint, no key amendments have been brought to the national legislation over the past year. However, the issuance of Decree 1122 on 30 August 2024 has introduced regulations for both Law 1474 of 2011 and Law 2195 of 2022, mandating that all public entities adopt transparency and ethics programmes.

Bribery is defined as the offering, giving, promising, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an individual in a public or private position. Both offering and accepting a bribe constitute criminal offences.

Additional activities qualifying as offences include:

• offering benefits to witnesses to alter their testimony; and
• promising benefits to a company executive or employee in exchange for an unjustified advantage that harms the company.

Corporations are legally required to implement compliance programmes to prevent bribery. Failure to do so can result in fines or even disqualification from contracting with the State.

Although Colombian law does not explicitly regulate hospitality expenses, such as travel, meals, or promotional expenditures, companies are encouraged to adopt internal compliance policies to ensure such expenses do not create a perception of undue influence. Facilitation payments are similarly undefined under Colombian regulations but may be interpreted as bribery depending on the context and intent.

Public officials are broadly defined to include members of public corporations, state employees, and workers of decentralised entities. This definition also covers individuals performing public functions on behalf of the state and employees of state-controlled companies when their relationship with the state is legal and regulatory in nature.

Bribery of foreign public officials is criminalised under Article 433 of the Criminal Code, aligning with the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. This provision covers the offering, promising, or giving of benefits to foreign public officials to influence their actions in international business transactions. Penalties include imprisonment ranging from nine to 15 years, fines, and disqualification from holding public office for equivalent periods.

Private bribery is also a criminal offence under Article 250-A of the Criminal Code. It is punishable by imprisonment of four to eight years and fines ranging from 10 to 1,000 legal monthly minimum wages (COP13,000,000 or approximately USD3,000 to COP1,300,000,000 or approximately USD300,000).

Influence peddling is a criminal offence in Colombia, applicable to both public servants and private individuals. For public servants, this offence is defined as the misuse of influence derived from their position to secure an advantage for themselves or a third party from another public official in matters under their jurisdiction. Penalties include four to eight years of imprisonment, fines ranging from 100 to 200 legal monthly minimum wages (COP130,000,000 or approximately USD30,000 to COP260,000,000 or approximately USD60,000), and disqualification from holding public office for five to eight years.

Private individuals who improperly influence public officials to secure undue benefits are subject to equivalent penalties, ensuring accountability for all parties involved in corrupt practices.

Colombian law also criminalises influence peddling involving foreign public officials. In line with the United Nations Convention against Corruption, which Colombia has ratified, the law penalises promises, offers, or grants of undue benefits to foreign officials or others for the misuse of their influence. Additionally, Colombia adheres to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, which holds individuals and corporations accountable for bribery and influence peddling in international transactions. This includes administrative, civil, and criminal liabilities for companies that facilitate or engage in such practices.

Offences Related to Inaccurate Corporate Books, Records, and False Information

In Colombia, criminal and administrative frameworks address offences involving inaccurate corporate books and records, as well as the dissemination of false information. These are primarily regulated by the Penal Code and enforced by bodies such as the Superintendence of Companies and the Superintendence of Finance.

Falsification of Private Documents

This offence pertains to the alteration or creation of false private documents with the intent to deceive and cause harm. It includes the manipulation of corporate records to present inaccurate information. The Supreme Court of Justice has addressed cases where falsified documents were used to obtain undue financial benefits, such as fraudulent tax refunds.

Concealment of Private Documents

This involves hiding documents to obstruct their use as evidence or to distort the truth in legal or administrative matters. In a corporate context, it may include concealing financial or accounting records to evade audits or investigations.

Regulation of Corporate Books and Records

Colombian law mandates that corporate and accounting books accurately and truthfully reflect a company’s financial operations. This requirement is enforced by the Superintendence of Companies and the Financial Superintendence.

Dissemination of False Information

Providing false information in a corporate environment is a criminal offence, particularly when intended to mislead investors, customers, or authorities. The Financial Superintendence underscores the necessity of truthful, verifiable, and sufficient information to maintain trust in the financial system.

Colombian law contains robust provisions to address offences such as misappropriation of public funds, unlawful taking of interest, embezzlement, and favouritism by public officials. These offences are outlined in the Penal Code to safeguard the integrity of public administration and ensure the proper use of state resources.

Misappropriation of Public Funds

This occurs when a public official appropriates state assets, assets belonging to state-owned entities, or assets under their custody for personal gain or the benefit of a third party. Penalties include imprisonment for six to 15 years, fines equivalent to the misappropriated amount, and disqualification from public office for the same period.

Embezzlement of Public Funds

This offence involves the diversion or misuse of public funds by a public official. Penalties include significant prison terms, and extradition may apply in international cases.

Unlawful Taking of Interest

The unlawful taking of interest is committed when a public servant acts in their own interest or that of a third party, when involved in any contract or transaction in which they are required to participate by virtue of their position or duties. Penalties range from 5.5 to 18 years of imprisonment, accompanied by fines and disqualification from public office for an equivalent period.

Colombian law addresses offences committed through intermediaries, particularly in cases of bribery and corruption. Both individuals and legal entities can be held accountable. For example, transnational bribery involves individuals who directly or indirectly give, promise, or offer money, valuables, or other benefits to foreign public officials in exchange for actions, omissions, or delays related to their official duties in international transactions. While legal entities cannot face criminal charges, they can be held administratively liable, with sanctions including substantial fines and being barred from contracting with the state. Further measures may involve publicising the sanction in the media and on the company’s website to promote transparency and deter unethical conduct.

While lobbying itself is not a regulated activity, actions that fall within its general scope can be subject to sanctions. For instance, proposing or promoting any interest in the law-making process in exchange for a specific benefit could constitute bribery or influence peddling.

In Colombia, the statute of limitations corresponds to the maximum penalty stipulated by law for each offence, with a minimum of five years and a maximum of twenty. If the crime was initiated or completed abroad, this minimum extends to ten years.

From an administrative perspective, the Superintendence of Companies has a ten-year limitation period for transnational bribery offences, and a five-year limitation period for administrative investigations related to non-compliance with regulations for implementing compliance programmes.

Colombian criminal law has both territorial and extraterritorial reach, meaning its laws can apply to offences committed outside national territory under certain conditions.

Specifically, Colombian criminal law applies to Colombian nationals who commit crimes abroad, provided the offence carries a minimum prison sentence of at least two years and the individual has not been tried in the foreign jurisdiction. It also applies to offences committed abroad that threaten the existence or security of the state, the constitutional order, social and economic stability, public administration, or involve counterfeiting national currency or financing terrorism.

For administrative procedures concerning transnational bribery, the Superintendence of Companies has jurisdiction over conduct committed abroad, as long as the legal entity or branch of a foreign company allegedly responsible or benefiting from the conduct is domiciled in Colombia.

Finally, for administrative procedures related to the implementation of compliance programmes, the Superintendence of Companies has territorial reach.

Corporate liability exists within both administrative and civil jurisdictions in Colombia. While companies or entities cannot currently face criminal charges, both individuals and companies can be held liable for the same offence, provided that offence is recognised in both jurisdictions – criminally for the individual and administratively for the company. Law 1778 of 2016 establishes an administrative liability regime for legal entities that benefit from corrupt acts, such as transnational bribery. Sanctions under this law include fines, bans on receiving government incentives, and public disclosure of the sanctions. Law 1474 of 2011 (the Anti-Corruption Statute) also provides for administrative sanctions against companies benefiting from crimes committed by their employees or managers, such as bribery or embezzlement. This liability applies even if the company did not directly participate in the offence, as long as it gained some benefit from the illicit activity.

Regarding the liability of successor entities, Colombian legislation does not explicitly address their criminal liability for offences committed by the target entity before a merger or acquisition. However, in the administrative realm, liability may extend to successor entities if they benefit from illicit acts or if such acts were part of the merger or acquisition agreement.

Both individuals and legal entities can be held liable for the same offence, but through different mechanisms: individuals face criminal prosecution, while companies are subject to administrative sanctions. This dual liability system ensures accountability for both the perpetrator and the benefiting entity.

Under the Anti-Corruption Statute (Law 1474 of 2011), compliance with transparency and public management norms, such as access to information, proper adherence to regulations, and the implementation of appropriate compliance programmes, can form part of a defence strategy. Although the law does not explicitly outline specific legal defences, demonstrating adherence to these requirements may mitigate culpability.

There is no explicit information about exceptions to these defences for anti-corruption offences; however, the right to defend oneself or one’s company is a constitutional right and cannot be restricted.

No specific de minimis exceptions are identified for anti-corruption offences. Generally, such exceptions are not applicable due to the serious nature of corruption-related crimes, regardless of the scale. Therefore, each case must be analysed individually to determine whether, within the specific context and situation, corrupt conduct can be considered to have occurred.

There are no sector-specific exemptions for anti-corruption offences. The laws apply broadly to all public and private entities managing public resources or engaging in state contracts, ensuring uniform accountability across sectors.

Colombia does have a leniency programme available to companies or individuals involved in corruption and transnational bribery.

A leniency request can be submitted until the deadline for filing a defence brief in an administrative proceeding before the Division of Economic and Corporate Affairs of the Superintendence of Companies. If multiple companies are involved in the conduct, requests are prioritised based on the order in which they are received. This order also determines the extent of the benefits, which can range from partial reductions to full exoneration of fines.

Granting leniency results in the early termination of the administrative procedure for the company receiving it, although proceedings may continue against other involved companies.

In Colombia, penalties for anti-corruption offences apply to both individuals and legal entities. Individuals convicted of these crimes face imprisonment, fines, and disqualifications. For example, influence peddling by private individuals is punishable by four to eight years of imprisonment and fines ranging from 100 to 200 monthly minimum wages (COP130,000,000 or approximately USD30,000 to COP260,000,000 or approximately USD60,000).

Furthermore, under Law 1474 of 2011, individuals convicted of corruption-related offences are ineligible for penal benefits such as parole. Legal entities are subject to administrative sanctions under the same law, including fines and other measures if a manager or employee is convicted of corruption offences. Law 2195 of 2022 strengthens this regime by allowing legal entities to be held civilly liable as third parties in corruption investigations. Both individuals and companies may also face disqualifications from engaging in state contracts. Law 2014 of 2019 establishes stricter disqualifications to ensure that those convicted of corruption cannot participate in state contracts, extending these measures to companies controlled by individuals convicted of corruption. These penalties are comprehensive and aim to deter corruption while safeguarding public resources.

For transnational bribery activities, the Superintendence of Companies can impose fines of up to 200,000 minimum legal monthly wages (COP260,000,000,000 or approximately USD58 million). Failure to comply with the Superintendence of Companies’ regulations regarding the implementation of business transparency and ethics programmes may lead to penalties of up to COP260,000,000 (approximately USD58,000).

The assessment of penalties for anti-corruption offences in Colombia is guided by the Criminal Code, which specifies a range of penalties for each offence. For instance, misappropriation of public funds carries a prison sentence ranging from six to 15 years. The precise penalty imposed depends on various factors, including the severity of the situation, the extent of the impact, and the amount misappropriated. There are no minimum sentences applicable to all crimes; each is assessed individually based on its own specific penalty range.

Repeat offences are treated more severely, both when multiple offences are being judged simultaneously and when the individual has a prior criminal record. Both situations are considered aggravating factors that can lead to a higher sentence. Furthermore, the Criminal Code allows for penalties to be doubled in cases of aggravating circumstances or when offences are committed under specific conditions, further increasing the severity of punishment for repeat offenders.

From an administrative perspective, the assessment of penalties related to transnational bribery takes the following factors into account:

• the economic benefit obtained or intended by the offender through their conduct;
• the offender’s financial capacity;
• repetition of the conduct;
• resistance, refusal, or obstruction of investigative or supervisory actions and procedural conduct of the investigated party;
• the use of intermediaries to conceal the infraction, the benefits obtained, or the money, goods, or services of economic value, or any benefit or utility offered or delivered to a national or foreign public official, or any of the effects of the infraction;
• express acknowledgement or acceptance of the infraction before the acceptance of evidence;
• the existence, implementation, and effectiveness of transparency and business ethics programmes or anti-corruption mechanisms within the company, as provided in Article 23 of the relevant law;
• the degree of compliance with injunctions;
• whether an adequate due diligence process was carried out prior to a merger, spin-off, reorganisation, or acquisition of control involving the company that committed the infringement; and
• whether the company brought the commission of transnational bribery to the attention of the authorities.

Colombian regulations, specifically Law 1474 of 2011, require that individuals and companies disclose violations of anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws. Employees are required to report violations through company whistle-blower channels, which must guarantee anonymity and accessibility. Public officials, such as auditors, are legally obligated to report acts of corruption to the relevant authorities, and internal control officers must disclose irregularities to oversight agencies.

To incentivise voluntary disclosure, Colombian regulations stipulate that companies must conduct training sessions promoting the use of internal whistle-blower channels. Furthermore, companies are required to implement whistle-blower protection policies. The Superintendence of Industry and Commerce and the Secretariat of Transparency also provide whistle-blower channels for individuals to report bribery or transnational bribery activities.

There is no prescribed process for submitting such information or documentation. Each company is expected to implement its own procedure, ensuring confidentiality and protecting those providing the information.

Currently, there are no specific regulations in place outlining the measures that must be adopted to protect whistle-blowers in Colombia. However, a bill is currently being developed that aims to establish whistle-blower protection mechanisms. In the interim, companies required to implement a compliance programme must establish their own policies to protect whistle-blowers from potential retaliation due to their reports.

There are currently no incentives for whistle-blowers to report bribery or corruption.

Regarding enforcement trends, administratively, the Superintendence of Companies can impose penalties for failure to implement a business transparency and ethics programme.

Criminally, enforcement is carried out through the prohibition of conduct such as bribery and related corruption offences, with penalties such as imprisonment and fines imposed on individuals based on the severity and circumstances of the offence.

While public entities harmed by corruption can seek to hold companies civilly liable for damages through judicial processes, there is currently no specific civil enforcement of anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws in Colombia.

The enforcement body for corruption is the Attorney General’s Office. In cases of transnational bribery, the enforcement bodies are the Attorney General’s Office and the Superintendence of Companies (administrative enforcement). Additionally, the Comptroller General of the Republic (CGR) oversees fiscal management and monitors the use of public funds and assets by public or private entities. The CGR’s powers include auditing accounts, establishing fiscal responsibility, imposing financial sanctions, and enforcing coactive jurisdiction. The CGR collaborates with other entities during evidence collection in fiscal responsibility processes. This means the Attorney General’s Office deals with criminal matters, while other entities examine corporate liability. These bodies interact based on a principle of collaboration, but there is no specific legal mandate detailing how this collaboration must be conducted.

The Superintendence of Companies can only impose fines on Colombian entities. While it could theoretically attempt to enforce actions against foreign entities, in practice this enforcement would be very difficult to carry out.

As an administrative authority, the Superintendence of Companies has discretion in mitigating and aggravating penalties when enforcing the law. Specifically, when a sanction results from the non-implementation of a business transparency and ethics programme, penalties are determined considering the following aspects, as outlined in Law 1437 of 2011:

• damage or danger caused to the protected legal interests;
• economic benefit obtained by the offender for themselves or a third party;
• recidivism (repeated commission of the infraction);
• resistance, refusal, or obstruction of investigative or supervisory actions;
• use of fraudulent means or an intermediary to conceal the infraction or its effects;
• the degree of diligence exercised in fulfilling duties or applying relevant legal norms;
• reluctance or contempt in complying with orders issued by the competent authority; and
• acknowledgement or express acceptance of the infraction before the acceptance of evidence.

In April 2024, the Superintendence of Companies imposed a fine of COP422,436,199.52 (approximately USD95,000) on a Colombian entity for corrupt practices.

The Odebrecht case remains one of the most prominent corruption scandals in the country, involving systematic bribery and resulting in over 160 criminal processes and investigations, with sanctions including up to eight years of imprisonment.

The Comptroller General of the Republic reported sanctions totalling COP199,248,510 during the 2022–2023 period. These fines resulted from fiscal administrative sanctioning processes and targeted entities and individuals managing public resources, highlighting the scope of fiscal control efforts. On the criminal side, prison sentences ranging from eight to 12 years have been imposed.

Administratively, in 2023, the Superintendence of Companies imposed a fine of COP353,997,972 (approximately USD79,000) on a Colombian entity for failing to implement a business transparency and ethics programme as required by regulations. The Superintendence also imposed a record fine of COP8,327,607,489 (approximately USD1.8 million) for transnational bribery practices.

Law 2195 of 2022 empowers each regulator to define the requirements for implementing a business transparency and ethics programme for the entities they oversee. The Superintendence of Companies has stipulated that companies under its supervision meeting certain criteria must implement a business transparency and ethics programme that includes, at a minimum:

• a procedure for identifying corruption (C) and transnational bribery (TB) risks;
• a procedure for identifying C/TB risk factors and their segmentation through independent diagnostics;
• a procedure for measuring and mitigating identified C/TB risks, along with an action plan to reduce residual risks within the company’s defined risk appetite;
• regulations regarding the offering, promising, and delivery (giving and receiving) of gifts or benefits to or from third parties;
• regulations concerning remuneration and commission payments to employees, associates, and contractors;
• regulations governing the company’s expenses related to entertainment, food, lodging, and travel;
• regulations regarding political contributions of any nature;
• regulations concerning donations and charitable contributions;

• regulations for updating the compliance policy and business transparency and ethics programme;
• audit, control, and document retention systems;
• defined responsibilities for employees exposed to C/TB risks (eg, treasury personnel) related to corruption prevention, and assigned functions to the board of directors or ultimate decision-making body, legal representative, compliance officer, and statutory auditor;
• regulated implementation of sanctioning procedures;
• established appropriate channels for confidential and secure reporting of suspicious activities related to C/TB risks, including regulations on the obligation to report, no-retaliation policies, and the applicable reporting procedure;
• tools to ensure that contractors, employees, and associates have access to, understand, and are trained on the compliance policies and the business transparency and ethics programme, tailored to the company’s needs;
• procedures for preserving documents related to international business or transactions;
• established due diligence procedures;
• identification of red flags;
• established mechanisms to control and monitor the business transparency and ethics programme and compliance policies; and
• appointment of a compliance officer who meets regulatory requirements.

Furthermore, the Administrative Department of the Presidency of the Republic issued Decree 1122 of 2024, regulating public transparency and ethics programmes. The development of these programmes should consider the following elements:

They must include, among other things: (i) due diligence measures; (ii) prevention, management, and administration of risks related to money laundering, terrorist financing, proliferation of weapons, and corruption; (iii) procedures for submitting reports to competent authorities (including suspicious transaction reports to the UIAF); (iv) whistle-blower channels; and (v) communication and training strategies for the public transparency and ethics programmes.

They must be accompanied by a matrix that allows the entity to manage its risks related to money laundering, terrorist financing, proliferation of weapons, and corruption.

The public transparency and ethics programme comprises two components: transversal and programmatic. These components will be developed through actions associated with a set of tools or instruments to facilitate implementation. The transversal component encompasses actions that ensure the integration of the public transparency and ethics programme into the institutional dynamics and organisational culture; the programmatic component comprises the institutional strategy for combating corruption.

In Colombia, the failure to prevent bribery is not directly classified as a criminal offence.

Enforcement bodies do not provide guidelines regarding expectations and/or best practices for compliance programmes. Compliance programmes must fulfil the requirements of the regulation.

Colombian regulation requires companies that meet certain criteria to appoint a compliance officer who will be in charge of the implementation and assessment of the compliance programme.

The enforcement of applicable legislation has not been assessed. However, the Superintendence of Companies has the power to review the compliance programmes implemented by companies under its supervision and surveillance to guarantee that they meet the regulatory requirements. In case of non-compliance, the Superintendence of Companies may impose fines of up to 200 minimum legal monthly wages (COP260,000,000 or approximately USD60,000).

From an administrative perspective, there are no changes likely to be made to applicable legislation of the enforcement body in the foreseeable future. Similarly, from a criminal perspective, no changes to the applicable legislation or the enforcement body are expected in the near future.