Individuals versus corporates: who shoulders the blame in bribery cases? Allison Clare QC examines the ‘adequate procedures’ defence
- Considers the principles which can be gleaned so far about the legal basis for the adequate procedures defence, the relevance of individual fault to corporate blameworthiness, and the emerging role of corporate culture.
After ten years of the operation of the Bribery Act 2010 (BA 2010), one of the most vexed questions remains the legal and factual basis for the BA 2010, s 7(2) adequate procedures defence. The question is particularly challenging when the relevant commercial organisation (RCO) facing a ‘failure to prevent’ allegation had extensive anti-bribery and corruption (ABC) policies in place, but one or more of its employees caused or permitted their circumvention.
In the absence of direct judicial guidance, some assistance can be gained from a number of sources: consideration of the underlying purpose of the adequate procedures defence, the terms of BA 2010 itself, cases thus far, and the ‘corporate culture’ concept.
