*/
The new Act: a review of the main provisions, by Robert-Jan Temmink
The much-heralded Bribery Act 2010 (“the Act”) received the Royal Assent on 8 April 2010. Previous anti-bribery law had been a hotch-potch of common law and statutory provisions from 1889 to 1916 which together were difficult to understand, hard to apply and even harder for prosecutors to use effectively. The Act abolishes the common law offences and sweeps away the 19th and 20th Century Prevention of Corruption Acts.
Using a novel form of drafting (the introduction of “cases” – samples of statutorily-restricted behaviour) the new offences created by the Act reach directors, managers and secretaries of companies as well as the corporate bodies and partnerships themselves. They have very broad jurisdictional reach which can affect any business, or part of a business, in the UK, even if the underlying behaviour does not have any substantive connection with the UK.
Broadly, the Act creates four categories of offence:
The latter offence is a strict liability offence for companies and extends to “associated persons” which includes employees, agents or subsidiaries, subject to the defence that the company had in place “adequate procedures” to prevent the bribery.
Following submissions at the review stage of the Bill from, amongst others, the Law Commission, the Secretary of State must publish guidance about procedures that relevant commercial organisations can put in place to prevent persons associated with them from bribing. In England and Wales, no prosecutions under the Act may be instituted without the consent of the DPP, the Director of the SFO, or the Director of HMRC Prosecutions.
Penalties range from fines to imprisonment for up to ten years, or to both and can extend not only to corporate bodies but also to the senior officers of the corporate bodies if the offences were committed with their consent or connivance.
There are defences for certain bribery offences for conduct conducted as part of any function of the intelligence service or any function of the armed forces when engaged on active service.
Territorial scope
Uncontroversially, s 12 of the Act provides that the offences under ss 1, 2 and 6 are committed if any act or omission which forms part of those offences takes place in the UK. More controversially, the Act also criminalises the acts or omissions abroad by individuals with a close connection with the UK if those acts or omissions would form part of the offences if they had been done or made in the UK. “Close connection with the UK” is defined in s 12(4) of the Act but includes a UK citizen, an individual ordinarily resident in the UK and a body incorporated under the law of any part of the UK.
An offence is committed under s 7 of the Act irrespective of where the constituent acts or omissions were made or done. The Act applies to any entity that carries on a business, or even part of a business, in the UK whether the acts or omissions, the constituent elements of the relevant offences took place in the UK or otherwise. This far-reaching territorial scope places the UK’s anti-bribery legislation on a par with the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and with the obligations under the OECD Convention, to which the UK is a signatory.
Robert-Jan Temmink is a barrister at Outer Temple Chambers. This is an edited version of an article that first appeared in New Law Journal (3 December 2010).
The different offences
Section 1
The s 1 offence prohibits a person (which includes a body corporate) from offering, promising, or giving a financial or other advantage:
Section 2
The s 2 offence prohibits a person from requesting, agreeing to receive, or accepting a financial or other advantage (“a bribe”) intending that a relevant function should then be performed improperly, either by that person, or by another person at the request of, or with the assent or acquiescence of, the first person. Again, it does not matter whether the bribe is requested, received (or agreed to be received) or accepted directly or through a third party; nor does it matter whether the bribe is, or will be for the first person’s benefit, or for the benefit of another person. Furthermore, it does not matter whether the person requesting or accepting the bribe knows or believes that the performance of the relevant function is improper.
A “function or activity” is “relevant” for the purposes of the Act if it fulfils a number of criteria. First, it has to be:
The relevant function or activity has also to be performed by a person who is expected to perform it
Section 6
Section 6 provides that it is an offence for a person (which definition also includes a body corporate) to offer, promise, or give any financial or other advantage to a foreign public official, either directly or through any third party, where the person’s intention is to influence the official in his capacity as a foreign public official and the person intends to obtain or retain either business or an advantage in the conduct of the business. “Foreign public official” is defined in s 6(5) of the Act.
Section 7
Section 7 creates a strict liability offence on commercial organisations where a person associated with the commercial organisation bribes another person (where the associated person commits an offence under ss 1 or 6) intending to obtain or retain either business or an advantage in the conduct of business save where the commercial organisation can prove that it had in place adequate procedures designed to prevent bribery. “Associated person” is defined in s 8 of the Act.
Using a novel form of drafting (the introduction of “cases” – samples of statutorily-restricted behaviour) the new offences created by the Act reach directors, managers and secretaries of companies as well as the corporate bodies and partnerships themselves. They have very broad jurisdictional reach which can affect any business, or part of a business, in the UK, even if the underlying behaviour does not have any substantive connection with the UK.
Broadly, the Act creates four categories of offence:
The latter offence is a strict liability offence for companies and extends to “associated persons” which includes employees, agents or subsidiaries, subject to the defence that the company had in place “adequate procedures” to prevent the bribery.
Following submissions at the review stage of the Bill from, amongst others, the Law Commission, the Secretary of State must publish guidance about procedures that relevant commercial organisations can put in place to prevent persons associated with them from bribing. In England and Wales, no prosecutions under the Act may be instituted without the consent of the DPP, the Director of the SFO, or the Director of HMRC Prosecutions.
Penalties range from fines to imprisonment for up to ten years, or to both and can extend not only to corporate bodies but also to the senior officers of the corporate bodies if the offences were committed with their consent or connivance.
There are defences for certain bribery offences for conduct conducted as part of any function of the intelligence service or any function of the armed forces when engaged on active service.
Territorial scope
Uncontroversially, s 12 of the Act provides that the offences under ss 1, 2 and 6 are committed if any act or omission which forms part of those offences takes place in the UK. More controversially, the Act also criminalises the acts or omissions abroad by individuals with a close connection with the UK if those acts or omissions would form part of the offences if they had been done or made in the UK. “Close connection with the UK” is defined in s 12(4) of the Act but includes a UK citizen, an individual ordinarily resident in the UK and a body incorporated under the law of any part of the UK.
An offence is committed under s 7 of the Act irrespective of where the constituent acts or omissions were made or done. The Act applies to any entity that carries on a business, or even part of a business, in the UK whether the acts or omissions, the constituent elements of the relevant offences took place in the UK or otherwise. This far-reaching territorial scope places the UK’s anti-bribery legislation on a par with the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and with the obligations under the OECD Convention, to which the UK is a signatory.
Robert-Jan Temmink is a barrister at Outer Temple Chambers. This is an edited version of an article that first appeared in New Law Journal (3 December 2010).
The different offences
Section 1
The s 1 offence prohibits a person (which includes a body corporate) from offering, promising, or giving a financial or other advantage:
Section 2
The s 2 offence prohibits a person from requesting, agreeing to receive, or accepting a financial or other advantage (“a bribe”) intending that a relevant function should then be performed improperly, either by that person, or by another person at the request of, or with the assent or acquiescence of, the first person. Again, it does not matter whether the bribe is requested, received (or agreed to be received) or accepted directly or through a third party; nor does it matter whether the bribe is, or will be for the first person’s benefit, or for the benefit of another person. Furthermore, it does not matter whether the person requesting or accepting the bribe knows or believes that the performance of the relevant function is improper.
A “function or activity” is “relevant” for the purposes of the Act if it fulfils a number of criteria. First, it has to be:
The relevant function or activity has also to be performed by a person who is expected to perform it
Section 6
Section 6 provides that it is an offence for a person (which definition also includes a body corporate) to offer, promise, or give any financial or other advantage to a foreign public official, either directly or through any third party, where the person’s intention is to influence the official in his capacity as a foreign public official and the person intends to obtain or retain either business or an advantage in the conduct of the business. “Foreign public official” is defined in s 6(5) of the Act.
Section 7
Section 7 creates a strict liability offence on commercial organisations where a person associated with the commercial organisation bribes another person (where the associated person commits an offence under ss 1 or 6) intending to obtain or retain either business or an advantage in the conduct of business save where the commercial organisation can prove that it had in place adequate procedures designed to prevent bribery. “Associated person” is defined in s 8 of the Act.
The new Act: a review of the main provisions, by Robert-Jan Temmink
The much-heralded Bribery Act 2010 (“the Act”) received the Royal Assent on 8 April 2010. Previous anti-bribery law had been a hotch-potch of common law and statutory provisions from 1889 to 1916 which together were difficult to understand, hard to apply and even harder for prosecutors to use effectively. The Act abolishes the common law offences and sweeps away the 19th and 20th Century Prevention of Corruption Acts.
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
Giovanni D’Avola explores the issue of over-citation of unreported cases and the ‘added value’ elements of a law report
Louise Crush explores the key points and opportunities for tax efficiency
Westgate Wealth Management Ltd is a Partner Practice of FTSE 100 company St. James’s Place – one of the top UK Wealth Management firms. We offer a holistic service of distinct quality, integrity, and excellence with the aim to build a professional and valuable relationship with our clients, helping to provide them with security now, prosperity in the future and the highest standard of service in all of our dealings.
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
Most of us like to think we would risk our career in order to meet our ethical obligations, so why have so many lawyers failed to hold the line? asks Flora Page
If your current practice environment is bringing you down, seek a new one. However daunting the change, it will be worth it, says Anon Barrister
Creating advocacy opportunities for juniors is now the expectation but not always easy to put into effect. Tom Mitcheson KC distils developing best practice from the Patents Court initiative already bearing fruit
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
The long-running fee-paid judicial pensions saga continues. The current cut-off date for giving notice of election to join FPJPS is 31 March 2024, and that date now gives rise to a serious problem, warns HH John Platt
