A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Meaning of 'Serious' bribery
The SFO mentions the importance of self-reporting any serious incident of bribery which might slip through adequate procedures. What did you mean by serious bribery as opposed to non-serious?
First of all, we do not necessarily expect companies or their legal advisers to report every single incident that comes to their attention. By definition, the types of cases we deal with are serious or complex ones and so we expect companies to act responsibly and to only refer issues to us that they - or their legal advisers - believe should be drawn to our attention. In most cases, as so much in the Bribery Act, the answer is often quite straightforward, but if there is any question of doubt, then it is much better to talk to us about it because we can always say whether it is something for us to investigate or to refer it elsewhere.
Promotional activity
There has been a good deal of confusion about promotional expenditure. Does section 6 the Act outlaw the payment of any promotional expenditure on a foreign public official?
Not at all. This is a widespread misconception.
Section 6 requires proof of an intent to make a payment to influence the recipient in their capacity as a foreign public official and an intent to obtain business or retain a business advantage.
Expenditure that is proportionate will not trigger this section; only lavish and disproportionate hospitality does.
There is much is to be gained from sector initiatives that outlaw bribes in particular fields of operation. We have also found that drawing these abuses to the authorities and through diplomatic channels in the countries concerned, as well as reporting them to relevant international agencies like the OECD, are also steps which can contribute to improving the situation in a particular country.
We would never think it appropriate to take action in a case where payments are made after a threat to health or safety. But equally, we expect companies to have a defined policy on bribery and corruption and, just as importantly, are seen to be implementing it.
'Serious' bribery
The SFO mentions the importance of self-reporting any serious incident of bribery which might slip through adequate procedures. What did you mean by serious bribery as opposed to non-serious?
First of all, we do not necessarily expect companies or their legal advisers to report every single incident that comes to their attention. By definition, the types of cases we deal with are serious or complex ones and so we expect companies to act responsibly and to only refer issues to us that they - or their legal advisers - believe should be drawn to our attention. In most cases, as so much in the Bribery Act, the answer is often quite straightforward, but if there is any question of doubt, then it is much better to talk to us about it because we can always say whether it is something for us to investigate or to refer it elsewhere.
Sharing information
If a company self-reports a matter which has potential implications for authorities overseas, what guarantee is there that the SFO will not pass on the information to its counterparts, for example, the Department of Justice in the United States?
We cannot guarantee this. Sharing information between law enforcement agencies and between jurisdictions has become an important weapon in the fight against international corruption.
We have a particularly close relationship with US Department of Justice. Both departments have developed a position of mutual trust. We expect the Department of Justice to draw our attention to serious corruption within our jurisdiction and they expect us to do the same.
On timing, if a corporate self-reported corruption with an international flavour to us, we would encourage the corporate to waste no time in self-reporting it to the other jurisdiction (or jurisdictions). In that way the corporate will get credit for its action in a UK court.
Subsidiary
The Bribery Act includes a company's subsidiary as an example of a person who 'performs services' for a company and therefore whose actions might make the company liable to the corporate offence of failing to prevent bribery. What does this mean in practical terms?
If a person who 'performs services' for a subsidiary commits an act of bribery with the intention of obtaining business or a business advantage for the subsidiary, that is enough to make the subsidiary itself subject to the corporate offence under section 7.
But it does not automatically follow from this that the holding company will be liable.
This would only happen if, on the facts of an individual case, there was an evidential link between the illegal activity of the individual performing the service for the subsidiary and the holding company. If there is a link like this, then the subsidiary would be regarded as performing services for the holding company and the holding company would be exposed under section 7 to an allegation of failing to prevent bribery in addition to any other offence under the Bribery Act 2011.
