A fat distributor margin is not automatically a bribe — an unexplained ‘activity fund’ paid in cash usually is.
Using distributors is normal. Risk concentrates when the distributor is a former employee’s company, when extra ‘marketing support’ is off-books, when they cover hospitals or government buyers, or when they sell outside authorised scope. AUCL treats third-party bribes as yours if you used them to win business. Contract audit rights, payment-to-USCC-only, and DD refresh matter more than a code-of-conduct annex. Third-party DD is the how-to related pages. Agency vs distribution is a contracts wiki, not this page.
4 questions before you choose the route.
This page identifies the right question and evidence. It does not determine the legal outcome on a reader’s facts.
Who owns the distributor?
Related-party check.
OwnerWhat is the extra margin for?
Market vs slush.
MarginWho are their customers?
Official/hospital overlay.
CustomersCan you audit and terminate?
Contract.
ControlWorking rule: Map the regulated role before marketing or launch in China.
The signal ledger.
These facts move the question beyond a label and into a product, money-flow and control analysis.
Bring a compact evidence docket—not a pitch deck.
Give a compliance team or counsel the operating facts that reveal the perimeter.
Questions people ask before they build.
Short answers for orientation. The right result can change with the service model and current rules.
Does a distributor make us safe from AUCL?
No. Using a third party is a listed pattern, not a shield.
Where is the contracts distribution page?
Distribution agreements in china for the commercial contract.
Primary authorities
Reviewed sources support orientation, not a fact-specific assessment.