header-logo header-logo

09 June 2011 / Greg Wildisen
Issue: 7469 / Categories: Features , Fraud , Bribery
printer mail-detail

Locating the smoking gun

Organisations need to adapt their business processes to avoid breaching the Bribery Act, says Greg Wildisen

The Bribery Act 2010 will come into force on 1 July 2011. It is set to alter business practices for UK companies and individuals conducting business in the UK or overseas, and foreign companies with a presence in the UK. The Act introduces a general offence prohibiting active and passive bribery, a specific offence of bribing a foreign public official, and a corporate offence for commercial organisations for failing to prevent active bribery committed by their employees, agents or subsidiaries (the corporate offence).

Corporate offence defence

Pursuant to s 7(2) of the Act, it will be a defence to a corporate breach if an organisation can demonstrate that it has “adequate procedures” in place, designed to prevent persons associated with it from committing bribery. In accordance with s 9 of the Act, the Ministry of Justice has issued guidance upon what will constitute “adequate procedures” (30 March 2011). The Secretary of State summarises that: “The guidance

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

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
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

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll