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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll