header-logo header-logo

The bribery game

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

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

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll