Legal corporate liability enforcement: comparative lessons from Malaysia, United Kingdom, United States and Australia

This study investigated the effectiveness of Malaysia’s enforcement mechanisms against corporate corruption, specifically evaluating Section 17A of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act, by drawing comparative insights from the United Kingdom, United States, and Australia. Employing a qualitative doctrinal and comparative legal approach, the research systematically analyzed anti-corruption statutes, enforcement data, judicial interpretations, and real-world case studies (e.g., 1MDB, Rolls Royce) across the selected jurisdictions. While Malaysia has established corporate liability, enforcement remains weak and inconsistent, with no major convictions under Section 17A as of 2024. Unlike the UK, US, and Australia which benefit from structured enforcement and mature compliance cultures Malaysia’s framework is hindered by the absence of Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs), vague adequate procedures guidance, and limited institutional independence. To foster corporate accountability and attract ethical investment, the study recommends adopting a DPA regime, issuing detailed compliance guidelines, and enhancing both MACC and judicial autonomy. This research provides one of the first comprehensive legal comparisons of corporate anti-corruption enforcement between these jurisdictions, offering an evidence-based roadmap for legal modernization and institutional reform in Southeast Asia.