From investigation to settlement – AFP's guidelines for corporate self-reporting and cooperation

The Australian Federal Police recently settled an over decade long investigation for AU$9 million, without referring the alleged conduct for criminal prosecution. This is one of the first resolutions of a foreign bribery investigation following publication of the AFP's April 2026 guideline on corporate self-reporting and cooperation.

In our article, we explain:

• when the AFP may agree to a non-conviction based civil resolution;
• why the company was not referred for prosecution; and
• what businesses should do now to prepare if a similar issues arises.

What you need to know

• The Australian Federal Police (AFP) recently settled a foreign bribery investigation commenced in 2013, without referring the matter for criminal prosecution. The company involved had self-reported the conduct to the AFP and had (without admission) agreed to pay AU$9 million, which the AFP said was the value of the benefit obtained from the conduct.
• The approach taken by the AFP in the recent settlement reflects principles summarised in its April 2026 guideline on corporate self-reporting and cooperation with AFP foreign bribery investigations. Such self-reporting and cooperation can be relevant to the AFP deciding not to refer conduct to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) for criminal prosecution.

What you need to do

• Consider how to meaningfully cooperate and engage if your business is the subject of a foreign bribery investigation by the AFP. This may minimise the risk of a criminal prosecution by the CDPP, encourage early resolution and civil settlement and minimise the reputational harm that may come with criminal proceedings
• Revisit your business' bribery and corruption controls to assess whether there are appropriate mechanisms in place for what to do if a corruption risk is identified.

Optimal investigation outcomes for self-reporting and cooperating corporations

In April 2026, the AFP released a guideline on how companies can achieve an optimal investigation outcome where they provide genuine cooperation in an AFP investigation, including through self-reporting (Guideline). In short, companies which cooperate with the AFP may increase the prospect of a non-conviction based civil resolution under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) (POCA), rather than a prosecution by the CDPP. The Guideline is directed at foreign bribery and related offending, though the principles may apply in other AFP investigations. It is designed to be read together with the AFP's earlier guidance on corporate cooperation (relevant to all AFP investigations).

• When is a non-conviction based civil resolution the likely outcome?

The AFP must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to commence proceedings, the company has provided genuine best practice cooperation, and it is in the public interest to resolve the matter civilly under the POCA. A non-conviction based civil resolution is not automatic. The AFP will still conduct an independent investigation, including assessing the quality of cooperation, the accuracy of any self-report and the reliability of any internal investigation.

• How is best practice cooperation assessed?

The AFP will assess cooperation against its Corporate Cooperation Guidance. This includes the quality and timeliness of disclosures, proactive provision of evidence, timely responses to information requests, the company's approach to legal professional privilege claims, encouragement of employee participation in investigations, cooperation in parallel investigations, and willingness to provide future cooperation.

• How is the public interest test satisfied?

The company must demonstrate that civil resolution, rather than criminal prosecution, serves the public interest. The AFP weighs the seriousness of the offending, the company's culture of integrity, and whether it has remediated the misconduct and redressed harm. The AFP also considers whether the collateral consequences of a criminal prosecution would be disproportionate to the conduct, whether the company continues to benefit from the conduct, whether there has been prior misconduct, and whether benefits derived have been relinquished.

• What happens if the AFP determines civil resolution is the optimal outcome?

The company will be invited to engage in without prejudice negotiations. If settlement is reached, the parties would ordinarily seek to agree a deed of settlement which contains proposed consent orders, with the Court retaining discretion to make the final orders under the POCA. The AFP aims to conclude negotiations within 12 months and may end those negotiations if it forms the view the company is not genuinely seeking to resolve the matter. Any resolution will be made public, with the AFP issuing a public statement unless the Court orders otherwise.

The recent settlement of a long running AFP foreign bribery investigation is a useful illustration of the principles summarised by the Guideline in action.

AFP's foreign bribery investigation

On 2 October 2026, the AFP announced it had settled a foreign bribery investigation into an engineering company involved in large governmental infrastructure projects.

As part of the settlement, the company agreed to pay a pecuniary penalty of AU$9 million under the POCA, disgorging the benefit the AFP says was derived from the alleged foreign bribery. It also agreed to pay the AFP's external legal costs for the investigation and donate to an anticorruption organisation. The settlement did not involve any admission of liability.

The AFP investigation commenced in 2013 and examined conduct across several jurisdictions including Sri Lanka and Vietnam. Given the matter has settled, there is limited publicly available information regarding the details of the alleged foreign bribery conduct. However, the information that is available provides useful guidance to businesses on factors that may lead to a settlement outcome where foreign bribery has (or is alleged to have) occurred.

Why did the AFP not refer the matter for prosecution?

The AFP opted for a civil resolution and did not refer the matter to the CDPP. In coming to that position, the AFP considered the following relevant public interest factors:

• Self-reporting: the company commissioned internal investigation reports which led to the company self-reporting to the AFP conduct by individuals that allegedly amounted to foreign bribery;
• Cooperation: the company cooperated with the AFP throughout the investigation, and voluntarily produced large volumes of evidentiary material;
• Investigation reports and privileged documentation provided: The company provided the AFP with detailed internal investigation reports and waived legal professional privilege over certain materials pertinent to the investigation;
• Alleged offenders have left: the alleged offenders involved in the conduct are no longer with the company;
• Enhancing internal governance: the company has enhanced its anti-bribery and compliance procedures since the alleged conduct and has confirmed that it continues to regularly review and update those procedures as required; and
• Timing: when the alleged conduct occurred and the length of time since the investigation commenced.

Key takeaways

Contested criminal proceedings in relation to foreign bribery can expose a company to substantial penalties and significant reputational harm, affecting both the company and its directors and officers, or any other individual involved in the alleged misconduct.

The AFP's recent settlement shows the potential benefits of civil resolution by cooperating and engaging early with the AFP in a foreign bribery investigation. Self-reporting, voluntary production of material, and improving compliance were all relevant to the AFP's decision to resolve that matter by civil settlement rather than refer it to the CDPP for prosecution. Civil resolution also offers greater certainty, particularly after a protracted investigation. Referral to the CDPP introduces a separate decision-making process: the CDPP independently assesses whether to prosecute and may take considerable time to review the evidence, seek further material and determine what charges, if any, should be brought and against whom.

A civil resolution still comes at a cost. In the recent resolution, the AU$9 million penalty, together with the agreement to meet the AFP's legal costs and the required donation, shows that bribery and corruption carry real financial risk for businesses. It also shows that the AFP remains committed to holding companies to account, even where they cooperate.

Businesses should review their anti-bribery and corruption controls, making sure there is a clear process for escalating and investigating suspected misconduct, for decision making in respect of self-reporting, and for deciding how and when to engage with the AFP if it is appropriate to do so.

Authors: James Clarke, Partner; Rani John, Partner; Kirsten Scott, Partner; Dario Aloe, Senior Associate and Laura Le, Lawyer.