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: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll