header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
22 June 2011
Issue: 7471 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Bribery Act jitters

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Nearly two out of five businesses say they need more time to prepare for the Bribery Act.

The 2011 Act, due to come into force on 1 July, makes it an offence for a company to bribe or to fail to prevent bribery taking place on its behalf at home and abroad.

A Thomson Reuters survey of more than 400 senior company secretaries and lawyers found that one in six had not yet discussed the new legislation at board level, while one quarter had held board discussions only once.

Stacey English, head of regulatory intelligence at Thomson Reuters Governance, Risk & Compliance, said: “Complete board involvement is vital no matter where that board is based.”

Training and communication would play a vital role in compliance, she said.

“There is a responsibility placed on a company to inform not only their staff but the employees of any third-party service providers it uses. Everyone involved in business dealings needs to be aware of the firm’s anti-bribery policies and stance with the Bribery Act. The survey suggests this is not happening

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Devonshires—Rebecca Eastwood

Devonshires—Rebecca Eastwood

Housing management and property litigation practice strengthened by Leeds partner hire

Trowers & Hamlins—Rahul Sagar

Trowers & Hamlins—Rahul Sagar

Banking and finance practice bolstered by partner hire

mfg Solicitors—Ian Sheppard

mfg Solicitors—Ian Sheppard

Commercial litigation team welcomes senior associate in Birmingham

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

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

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
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
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
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
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
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
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll