header-logo header-logo

15 April 2010
Issue: 7413 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Corruption clampdown

Unlimited fines and 10 years’ imprisonment possible for contravening Bribery Act

UK businesses face tough penalties if they attempt to bribe overseas officials following a major overhaul of anti-corruption laws.
The Bribery Act 2010, which received Royal Assent last week, increases penalties for bribery and introduces new offences of bribery of foreign public officials and corporate failure to prevent bribery. Companies are required to have “adequate processes” in place to prevent such attempts.

Contravention could lead to up to 10 years in prison or unlimited fines. The corporate offence of failure to prevent bribery is punishable by an unlimited fine.

The Act is due to come into force in stages later this year.

Will Kenyon, partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, says: “UK companies have a new set of risks to navigate with the introduction of this legislation.
“The Act introduces a new crime of ‘failure to prevent’ bribery which means that companies unable to demonstrate that they have implemented ‘adequate procedures’ to prevent corrupt practices within their ranks or by third parties on their behalf could be exposed to unlimited fines as well as other collateral consequences, such as debarment from government business.”

The chances of detection and successful prosecution are increasing due to greater cross-border collaboration between international enforcement agencies, he says.

“Many companies will need to review how they behave to avoid being caught by the Act. It is important to remember that, from an organisation’s point of view, bribery is a lot more than just a legal issue.

“It is driven by law but the real challenges are for management—implementing and maintaining the right processes, controls, governance and culture and encouraging the right values and behaviours. All companies should review their risk profile and anti-bribery programmes.”

John Smart, head of Ernst & Young’s fraud investigation dispute services team, says all UK businesses needed to take action against corruption “from the Board to the shop floor”.

“Bribery and corruption risk doesn’t only come from within, business needs to ask what is being done in its name,” he says.

“Agents, consultants, distributors, joint ventures and new acquisitions create exposures which can be difficult to assess but these are precisely the areas where the risk can be greatest. Organisations need to look carefully at the due diligence they carry out on third parties who act on their behalf.”

 

Issue: 7413 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll