25 Years of the World Bank’s Sanctions Regime – Why a Closer Look Is More Important Than Ever

7 min read

On May 1, 2023, the World Bank released the third edition of its Sanctions Board Law Digest ("2023 Law Digest"), commemorating the 25th anniversary of its first formal sanctioning body, the former Sanctions Committee. In view of the release and anniversary, it is opportune to recall the history, operation, implications and the latest developments of the World Bank's sanctions regime. All demonstrate that increased attention by participants in World Bank Group-funded projects and their counsel to this global anti-corruption regime is more important than ever.

History of the Sanctions Regime

The Sanctions Committee was established in 1998 with a mandate to review allegations of misconduct in transactions backed by financing of the World Bank Group. It initially consisted of five members, all of which were staff of the World Bank Group. Through a series of reforms, the current Sanctions Board was created and conducted its first review in 2007. Since then it evolved to have all-external membership, received a mandate to publish decisions and its own dedicated Law Digest, and benefitted from the creation of a professional secretariat. Its reviews extend to cases relating to the International Finance Corporation ("IFC"), the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency ("MIGA") and Bank Guarantee operations.

A Regime with Rapidly Increasing Significance

The World Bank Group's sanctions regime, however, is far from self-contained. Decisions and actual sanctions imposed on a particular company or individual are public, causing any proceedings to present potential reputational concerns. Furthermore, in recent years the World Bank Group has increasingly collaborated and shared relevant information with U.S. and non-U.S. regulatory and enforcement authorities, including the U.S. Department of Justice, the European Anti-Fraud Office and INTERPOL. Finally, a 2010 enforcement agreement signed by the World Bank Group, the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development introduced the concept of cross-debarment whereby under certain conditions, debarment decisions by one institution will be mutually recognized and enforced by the other institutions, thus multiplying the impact of sanctions. 

These developments align with the global trend of multi-national investigations by multiple authorities cooperating and combatting fraud and corruption when they have jurisdiction to do so. This trend is likely to continue. An example is the creation of the European Public Prosecutor's Office, which investigates and prosecutes financial crime affecting the budget of the European Union. Our group has previously written on this development: EU Public Prosecutor's Office Launches OperationsThe Complementary Roles of the European Public Prosecutor's Office and the European Anti-Fraud Office, and The Framework for Cooperation between the European Public Prosecutor's Office and Non-EU Third Countries.

A Two-Tiered Sanctions Process

The current sanctions process is two-tiered. First, the World Bank Group's Integrity Vice Presidency ("INT") will investigate allegations of fraud, corruption, coercion, collusion or obstruction that relate to projects financed by the World Bank Group. Such allegations may be brought to INT from internal or external stakeholders. Where INT believes that there is sufficient evidence of a sanctionable practice, a sanctions case will be launched by the submission of a Statement of Accusation and Evidence to an Evaluation and Suspension Officer ("EO"). Should the EO find that INT has presented sufficient evidence, it will issue a Notice of Sanctions Proceedings coupled with a suggested sanction. 

The Sanctions Procedures provide for five distinct sanctions:

  • Debarment with Conditional Release: The respondent may be deemed ineligible for a World Bank Group financed contract or otherwise to participate in financed activities for at least three years. Release from this sanction depends on satisfying certain predefined conditions the sanctioned party creating and implementing an acceptable integrity compliance program.
  • Plain Vanilla Debarment: Where the imposition of conditions would be futile; e.g., where a sanctions regime is already in place or the sanctionable practice was an isolated act, the debarment will be imposed for a specified period after which the respondent is automatically released.
  • Conditional Non-Debarment: The respondent may avoid debarment if it fulfills certain predefined conditions within a specified period.
  • Letter of Reprimand: Where debarment or conditional non-debarment appear disproportionate, a formal reprimand will be issued.
  • Restitution: Finally, appropriate cases may trigger restitution towards the borrower, or any other affected party.

In response to the Notice of Sanctions Proceedings, the respondent may file an Explanation seeking either dismissal of the case entirely or a reduction of the recommended sanction. If the respondent fails to file an Explanation, the recommended sanction will be imposed. 

If the recommended sanction is contested, the Sanctions Board will conduct a de novo review of the case and come to a final decision. The Sanctions Board is an independent tribunal that renders final decisions in contested cases and represents the second tier of review (after the EO). Since 2016, the Sanctions Board has operated under all-external membership to ensure fairness, independence and impartiality. Although the Sanctions Board moved to completely virtual hearings during the COVID-19 pandemic, now many proceedings before it involve oral hearings during which a respondent has the opportunity to defend against the allegations.

In determining the appropriate sanction(s), the EO and the Sanctions Board will consider mitigating and aggravating factors that are set out in the Sanctioning Guidelines. At times, sanctions may be imposed through a negotiated settlement, subject to a number of procedural and substantive safeguards.

The 2023 Law Digest – Some Key Takeaways

The 2023 Law Digest outlines in great detail the developments within the Sanctions Board's jurisprudence, including contours and nuances to the Sanctions Procedures that are of enormous practical significance. The following are some of the most relevant takeaways:

  • Fraudulent conduct requires knowledge and/or recklessness. The Sanctions Board has found knowing conduct where a respondent: (i) personally submitted an application containing untruthful statements about the respondent's prior experience, (ii) admitted that one or more of its representatives acted knowingly by personally fabricating documents, or (iii) took specific steps to conceal facts subject to a disclosure requirement. It has found reckless conduct where a respondent submitted bids without appropriate review (particularly when red flags were apparent), (i) engaged and relied on representatives without appropriate vetting or documentation, and (ii) failed to maintain oversight and document authentication mechanisms to mitigate the risk of misrepresentation in bids and proposals.
  • A corrupt "thing of value" can take myriad forms. The Sanctions Board has found a corrupt act in many varied circumstances, including fund transfers, cash payments, in-kind gifts, payments for certain expenses (often travel-related) incurred by recipients, recreational events planned for recipients and hiring decisions with respect to recipients' employees or family. Unlike under the FCPA, there is no exception for reasonable amounts spent on travel and hospitality for foreign officials in connection with a bona fide explanation or demonstration of products or services.
  • Corporates may be vicariously liable. The Sanctions Board consistently holds respondents vicariously liable for acts of owners, staff and authorized representatives; provided that the respective person: (i) has acted within the course and scope of his or her employment/representative status, and (ii) that the misconduct was motivated, at least partially, by a desire to serve the company.
  • Sanctions apply to all controlled affiliates. Once the Sanctions Board decides that a respondent engaged in a sanctionable practice, generally any sanctions imposed also apply to all affiliate entities under the respondent's direct or indirect control. These further sanctions are imposed without a separate or specific finding of liability on behalf of the controlled affiliates. 
  • Corporate groups face four rebuttable presumptions. (i) When the respondent is a corporate entity, sanctions apply to the entire business, unless the respondent demonstrates only an identifiable division or business unit is responsible. (ii) Any sanction imposed shall apply to all entities the respondent controls, unless respondent shows that doing so would be disproportionate or unreasonable. (iii) Sanctions apply to entities controlling the respondent or to entities under common control with respondent if a degree of involvement by the non-respondent corporate entity is shown. (iv) Sanctions apply to successors and assignees of the sanctioned respondent, unless the successor or assignee demonstrates that doing so would violate principles underlying application of sanctions for corporate groups.


The 2023 Law Digest is a reminder of the rapidly increasing significance of the World Bank Group's sanctions regime. Its legal framework is becoming more developed, and its impact is growing. Individuals and companies involved or seeking to become involved in projects funded by the World Bank Group are thus well-advised to seek counsel to familiarize themselves with the applicable framework early on and establish and maintain an appropriate compliance framework to ensure proper conduct throughout the course of a project to avoid becoming ensnared in sanctions proceedings that can have deleterious financial and reputational effects.

White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.

This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.

© 2023 White & Case LLP