Articles

Five things to know before conducting a corporate investigation in Belgium

Five things to know before conducting a corporate investigation in Belgium

Five things to know before conducting a corporate investigation in Belgium

30.03.2017 BE law

Corporate investigations can help businesses to respond appropriately to whistleblowers’ claims and to identify and address potential misconduct promptly.  In the Belgian chapter of "Corporate Investigations 2017” (International Comparative Legal Guide) Hans Van Bavel and Frank Staelens (Moore Stephens Belgium) set out their insight on the latest practices, developments and trends in this particular field.

Below, Hans and Frank summarize the five most important questions a company needs to have taken into consideration before conducting a corporate investigation in Belgium.

 

1. What legal obligations should a company consider when deciding whether to conduct a corporate investigation?

There is no specific legal framework for internal corporate investigations.  However, any internal investigation must comply with the rules on privacy and employee protection, which are set out in or derived from Belgian privacy law, telecommunication law, and employment law.  As one must observe the right to privacy, personal integrity and individual freedom, an entity may not use force in any way for the purpose of finding evidence.  Only law enforcement agencies are allowed to use force on or compel individuals for the purpose of finding evidence to the extent permitted by law, and only in a proportional manner to achieve a legitimate aim.

Internal investigations that are conducted with the consent of the employees are possible. The entity may interrogate its employees on condition that no force or acts of intimidation are used.  Moreover, different collective bargaining agreements (“CBA”) allow for the possibilities to take certain investigative measures when deemed necessary.

 

2. Should a company liaise with the authorities before, during or after a corporate investigation?

The entity is not required to liaise with local authorities before starting an internal investigation.  Whether or not it should liaise with local authorities depends on the specific case and circumstances.  There is also no involvement of law enforcement entities during internal investigations.  As a general rule, the internal and external investigations are all conducted separately.

Liaising with local authorities can be considered as an element of good faith on the entity’s part, or at least as a mitigating circumstance should the entity be sanctioned. Voluntary disclosure of the results of a properly conducted internal investigation for instance can be taken into account by law enforcement authorities when they decide whether to prosecute the corporate entity itself rather than the individual(s) involved.  This is because a legal entity can only be punished under criminal law if it has acted with the required mens rea or guilty mind.  Voluntary disclosure of the results of an internal investigation could be an element – albeit post factum – in showing that the entity seeks to distance itself from the event in question.

 

3. Before initiating the investigation, companies should set up an investigation plan to guarantee the most reliable and conclusive outcome. Which steps should be included in this investigation plan?

  • Step 1: secure the data that are subjected to the internal investigation 
  • Step 2: assess whether the use of outside forensic auditors is important to ensure the credibility/independence of the investigation report;                                          
  • Step 3: if evidence is found during the investigation, secure the access to the company’s buildings, intranet, and bank accounts
  • Step 4: if the investigation concerns an employee, assess whether the investigation findings are sufficient to dismiss him or her for cause
  • Step 5: assess whether it is useful to file a criminal complaint.

 

4. Which data collection and data privacy regulations should a company consider when conducting a corporate investigation?

Internal investigations often imply the processing of personal data or electronic communications.  Data protection laws should therefore be considered, especially the rules on the transfer of personal data (within and outside the EU).

In Belgium the following laws or regulations apply, where applicable:

  • The Data Protection Act of 8 December 1992 (“BDPA”).  Personal data may only be processed proportionately and transparently and for well-defined purposes.  To the extent that there is a clear, legitimate basis for the processing, different bases are exhaustively listed in Article 5, BDPA.  As data processing should always be proportionate to the envisaged purposes, it is important to strictly target the data and documents to those that are strictly necessary for the investigation.
  • The Act of 13 June 2005 on Electronic Communications (because internal investigations will often include electronic communications).  These articles prohibit the following actions if they are done without the consent of all directly or indirectly involved persons, with fines of up to EUR 400,000: “(1°) intentionally obtain information about the existence of any information that has been sent by electronic means and that is not personally addressed to him, (2°) intentionally identify persons involved in the transmission of the information and the contents thereof, (3°) notwithstanding articles 122 and 123, intentionally obtain information concerning electronic communication and concerning another person, (4°) modify, delete, disclose, conserve, or use otherwise the information, identification, or data that have been obtained, intentionally or not.”
  • Article 314bis of the Criminal Code, which prohibits anyone from knowingly and willingly monitoring, gaining knowledge of, or registering the contents of (tele)communications that are not available to the public, unless all participants to the communication have given their permission to it.
  • Collective Bargaining Agreement no. 81 of 26 April 2002 on the protection of the private life of employees with regard to the monitoring of electronic online communication data (“CBA no. 81”). 

 

5. Is it common practice for a company to prepare a written investigation report at the end of internal investigation?

It is indeed recommended to prepare a written declaration and have it signed by the interviewee. An investigation report should include a full description of the data and analysis techniques used, the declarations made by the interviewees/whistleblowers, and an overview of the findings.  Moreover, it is useful to include an executive summary.  An investigation report should not contain conclusions or any other personal opinions of the investigator.

A written report entails the risk that any written acknowledgment of the flaws in the entity’s monitoring or verification procedure can and will be used as evidence against the entity.  However, if an outside counsel supervises the internal investigation and acts as an intermediary, all correspondence he or she makes is protected by professional secrecy.  Legal privilege can therefore counter this risk to a certain extent.

 

More Information? Click here.

Team

Related news

20.06.2019 NL law
Stibbe advises Westermeerwind

Inside Stibbe - The District Court Midden-Nederland ruled in favour of Westermeerwind B.V. on 19 June, in a case brought by organisations acting for the 'Westermeerwind Group'. The group had claimed that the 32 members of that group had the right to participate in the Windpark Westermeerwind at a much lower price than other participants, and with a different corporate structure.

Read more

28.05.2019 NL law
Dutch court: insufficient substantiation? No follow-on cartel damages action

Short Reads - Dutch courts are forcing claimants (including claims vehicles) to be well-prepared before initiating follow-on actions. The Amsterdam District Court in the Dutch trucks cartel follow-on proceedings recently ruled that claimants – specifically CDC, STCC, Chapelton, K&D c.s. and STEF c.s. – had insufficiently substantiated their claims. These claimants now have until 18 September 2019 to provide sufficient facts regarding transactions that – according to them – were affected by the cartel. Preparation should thus be key for cartel damages actions.

Read more

04.06.2019 NL law
Dutch Supreme Court clarifies evidentiary rules concerning signatures and signed documents

Short Reads - In two recent decisions, the Dutch Supreme Court has clarified the evidentiary power of signed documents. If the signatory unambiguously denies that the signature on the document is his or hers or claims that another party has tampered with the signature (for instance, through forgery or copying a signature from one document and pasting it in another), it is up to the party invoking the signed document to prove the signature's authenticity (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:572).

Read more

24.05.2019 NL law
European regulatory initiatives for online platforms and search engines

Short Reads - As part of the digital economy, the rise of online platforms and search engines raises all kinds of legal questions. For example, do bicycle couriers qualify as employees who are entitled to ordinary labour law protections? Or should they be considered self-employed (see our Stibbe website on this issue)? The rise of online platforms also triggers more general legal questions on the relationship between online platforms and their users. Importantly, the European Union is becoming increasingly active in this field.

Read more

03.06.2019 NL law
Toerekening van kennis van groepsvennootschappen

Articles - In de praktijk doet zich vaak de vraag voor of kennis die aanwezig is binnen de ene vennootschap kan worden toegerekend aan een andere vennootschap binnen hetzelfde concern. In dit artikel verkent Branda Katan zowel de dogmatische grondslag als de praktische toepassing van een dergelijke toerekening. Zij concludeert dat het ‘Babbel-criterium’ (heeft in de gegeven omstandigheden de kennis X in het maatschappelijk verkeer te gelden als kennis van Y?) geschikt is voor het toerekenen van kennis in concernverband.

Read more

01.05.2019 NL law
Arbitral award obligating Ecuador to prevent enforcement of USD 8.6 billion order does not violate public order

Short Reads - Due to environmental damage as a result of oil extraction in the Ecuadorian Amazon, oil company Chevron was ordered to pay USD 8.6 billion to Ecuadorian citizens. In order to claim release of liability, Chevron and Texaco initiated arbitration proceedings against Ecuador. Arbitral awards ordered Ecuador to prevent enforcement of the Ecuadorian judgment, leaving the Ecuadorian plaintiffs temporarily unable to enforce their judgment. According to the Supreme Court (12 April 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:565), these arbitral awards did however not violate public order.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring