header-logo header-logo

13 June 2012 / Hle Blog
Issue: 7518 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-detail

The bribery game

HLE blogger Simon Hetherington examines the impact of the Bribery Act on Olympic hospitality

"Corporate hospitality might have been expected to have a bumper season this year. But apparently such is not the case. A number of companies, it is reported, are refusing to allow their staff to accept tickets to the Olympics, lest they fall foul of the Bribery Act 2010. Commendable restraint, one might think, but let’s take a closer look.

On 1 July 2012 it will be a year since the provisions of the Act came into force, and you’d have thought that at some point between then and now this problem would have been anticipated. After all, we all knew that the Olympics were coming to London.

Without specific reference to the Olympics, the DPP and the Director of the Serious Fraud Office last year issued guidance as to the prosecution of offences under the Act. In it, there is the following passage: “Hospitality or promotional expenditure which is reasonable, proportionate and made in good faith is an established and important part of doing business. The Act does not seek to penalise such activity.”

That is not to say that giving or accepting hospitality is incapable of contravening the Act. There are a handful of relevant factors mentioned by the guidance, such as the following: “The more lavish the hospitality or expenditure…the greater the inference that it is intended to encourage or reward improper performance or influence an official.”

So why are companies running scared? What is different about entertaining clients and contacts at Olympic events? Well, in reality, nothing but perception. Unusually rigorous scrutiny has attended the process of getting tickets for Olympic events; perhaps a similarly close watch is going to be kept on how tickets are used. It is reasonable to suppose that the merest hint of misconduct, bribery or corruption associated with the event will not be tolerated…”

To continue reading go to: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk

 

Issue: 7518 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

back-to-top-scroll