The Bribery Act 2010

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

Foreword

Bribery blights lives. Its immediate victims include firms that

lose out unfairly. The wider victims are government and society,

undermined by a weakened rule of law and damaged social and

economic development. At stake is the principle of free and fair

competition, which stands diminished by each bribe offered or

accepted.

Tackling this scourge is a priority for anyone
who cares about the future of business, the
developing world or international trade. That
is why the entry into force of the Bribery
Act on 1 July 2011 is an important step
forward for both the UK and UK plc. In line
with the Act’s statutory requirements, I am
publishing this guidance to help organisations
understand the legislation and deal with the
risks of bribery. My aim is that it offers clarity
on how the law will operate.

Readers of this document will be aware
that the Act creates offences of offering or
receiving bribes, bribery of foreign public
officials and of failure to prevent a bribe
being paid on an organisation’s behalf.
These are certainly tough rules. But readers
should understand too that they are directed
at making life difficult for the mavericks
responsible for corruption, not unduly
burdening the vast majority of decent,
law-abiding firms.

I have listened carefully to business
representatives to ensure the Act is
implemented in a workable way – especially
for small firms that have limited resources.
And, as I hope this guidance shows,
combating the risks of bribery is largely
about common sense, not burdensome
procedures. The core principle it sets out
is proportionality. It also offers case study
examples that help illuminate the application
of the Act. Rest assured – no one wants to
stop firms getting to know their clients by
taking them to events like Wimbledon or
the Grand Prix. Separately, we are publishing
non-statutory ‘quick start’ guidance.
I encourage small businesses to turn to this
for a concise introduction to how they can
meet the requirements of the law.

Ultimately, the Bribery Act matters for Britain
because our existing legislation is out of date.
In updating our rules, I say to our international
partners that the UK wants to play a leading

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

role in stamping out corruption and supporting
trade-led international development. But
I would argue too that the Act is directly
beneficial for business. That’s because it
creates clarity and a level playing field,
helping to align trading nations around decent
standards. It also establishes a statutory
defence: organisations which have adequate
procedures in place to prevent bribery are in
a stronger position if isolated incidents have
occurred in spite of their efforts.

Some have asked whether business can
afford this legislation – especially at a time of
economic recovery. But the choice is a false
one. We don’t have to decide between tackling
corruption and supporting growth. Addressing
bribery is good for business because it creates
the conditions for free markets to flourish.

Everyone agrees bribery is wrong and that
rules need reform. In implementing this Act,
we are striking a blow for the rule of law and

growth of trade. I commend this guidance
to you as a helping hand in doing business
competitively and fairly.

Kenneth Clarke

Secretary of State for Justice
March 2011

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

Contents

Introduction

Government policy and Section 7 of the Bribery Act

Section 1 – Offences of bribing another person

Section 6 – Bribery of a foreign official

Section 7 – Failure of commercial organisations to prevent bribery

The six principles

Appendix A: Bribery Act 2010 case studies

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

Introduction

The Bribery Act 2010 received Royal
Assent on 8 April 2010. A full copy of
the Act and its Explanatory Notes can
be accessed at:

www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/

acts2010/ukpga_20100023_en_1

The Act creates a new offence under
section 7 which can be committed by
commercial organisations

which fail to

prevent persons associated with them
from committing bribery on their behalf.
It is a full defence for an organisation
to prove that despite a particular case
of bribery it nevertheless had adequate
procedures in place to prevent persons
associated with it from bribing. Section 9
of the Act requires the Secretary of State
to publish guidance about procedures
which commercial organisations can put in
place to prevent persons associated with
them from bribing. This document sets
out that guidance.

The Act extends to England & Wales,

Scotland and Northern Ireland. This
guidance is for use in all parts of the
United Kingdom. In accordance with
section 9(3) of the Act, the Scottish
Ministers have been consulted regarding
the content of this guidance. The
Northern Ireland Assembly has also been
consulted.

This guidance explains the policy

behind section 7 and is intended to help
commercial organisations of all sizes
and sectors understand what sorts of
procedures they can put in place to prevent
bribery as mentioned in section 7(1).

The guidance is designed to be of general

application and is formulated around
six guiding principles, each followed by
commentary and examples. The guidance
is not prescriptive and is not a one-
size-fits-all document. The question of
whether an organisation had adequate
procedures in place to prevent bribery in
the context of a particular prosecution is
a matter that can only be resolved by the
courts taking into account the particular
facts and circumstances of the case. The
onus will remain on the organisation, in
any case where it seeks to rely on the
defence, to prove that it had adequate
procedures in place to prevent bribery.
However, departures from the suggested
procedures contained within the
guidance will not of itself give rise to a
presumption that an organisation does
not have adequate procedures.

If your organisation is small or medium

sized the application of the principles
is likely to suggest procedures that are
different from those that may be right for
a large multinational organisation. The
guidance suggests certain procedures, but
they may not all be applicable to your
circumstances. Sometimes, you may have
alternatives in place that are also adequate.

See paragraph 35 below on the definition of the phrase ‘commercial organisation’.

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

As the principles make clear commercial

organisations should adopt a risk-based
approach to managing bribery risks.
Procedures should be proportionate to
the risks faced by an organisation. No
policies or procedures are capable of
detecting and preventing all bribery.
A risk-based approach will, however,
serve to focus the effort where it is
needed and will have most impact. A
risk-based approach recognises that the
bribery threat to organisations varies
across jurisdictions, business sectors,
business partners and transactions.

The language used in this guidance

reflects its non-prescriptive nature.
The six principles are intended to be of
general application and are therefore
expressed in neutral but affirmative
language. The commentary following
each of the principles is expressed more
broadly.

All terms used in this guidance have

the same meaning as in the Bribery Act
2010. Any examples of particular types
of conduct are provided for illustrative
purposes only and do not constitute
exhaustive lists of relevant conduct.

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

Government policy and

Section 7 of the Bribery Act

Bribery undermines democracy and

the rule of law and poses very serious
threats to sustained economic progress in
developing and emerging economies and
to the proper operation of free markets
more generally. The Bribery Act 2010
is intended to respond to these threats
and to the extremely broad range of
ways that bribery can be committed. It
does this by providing robust offences,
enhanced sentencing powers for the
courts (raising the maximum sentence for
bribery committed by an individual from
7 to 10 years imprisonment) and wide
jurisdictional powers (see paragraphs 15
and 16 on page 9).

The Act contains two general offences

covering the offering, promising or
giving of a bribe (active bribery) and
the requesting, agreeing to receive or
accepting of a bribe (passive bribery)
at sections 1 and 2 respectively. It also
sets out two further offences which
specifically address commercial bribery.
Section 6 of the Act creates an offence
relating to bribery of a foreign public
official in order to obtain or retain
business or an advantage in the conduct
of business

, and section 7 creates a new

form of corporate liability for failing to
prevent bribery on behalf of a commercial
organisation. More detail about the
sections 1, 6 and 7 offences is provided
under the separate headings below.

The objective of the Act is not to bring

the full force of the criminal law to bear
upon well run commercial organisations
that experience an isolated incident of
bribery on their behalf. So in order to
achieve an appropriate balance, section
7 provides a full defence. This is in
recognition of the fact that no bribery
prevention regime will be capable of
preventing bribery at all times. However,
the defence is also included in order to
encourage commercial organisations
to put procedures in place to prevent
bribery by persons associated with them.

The application of bribery prevention

procedures by commercial organisations
is of significant interest to those
investigating bribery and is relevant
if an organisation wishes to report an
incident of bribery to the prosecution
authorities – for example to the Serious
Fraud Office (SFO) which operates
a policy in England and Wales and
Northern Ireland of co-operation with
commercial organisations that self-refer
incidents of bribery (see ‘Approach of the
SFO to dealing with overseas corruption’
on the SFO website). The commercial
organisation’s willingness to co-operate
with an investigation under the Bribery
Act and to make a full disclosure will also
be taken into account in any decision as
to whether it is appropriate to commence
criminal proceedings.

Conduct amounting to bribery of a foreign public official could also be charged under section 1 of the Act. It will be for
prosecutors to select the most appropriate charge.

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

In order to be liable under section 7 a

commercial organisation must have
failed to prevent conduct that would
amount to the commission of an offence
under sections 1 or 6, but it is irrelevant
whether a person has been convicted of
such an offence. Where the prosecution
cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt
that a sections 1 or 6 offence has been
committed the section 7 offence will not
be triggered.

The section 7 offence is in addition to,

and does not displace, liability which
might arise under sections 1 or 6 of the
Act where the commercial organisation
itself commits an offence by virtue of the
common law ‘identification’ principle.

Jurisdiction

Section 12 of the Act provides that the

courts will have jurisdiction over the
sections 1, 2

or 6 offences committed

in the UK, but they will also have
jurisdiction over offences committed
outside the UK where the person
committing them has a close connection
with the UK by virtue of being a British
national or ordinarily resident in the UK, a
body incorporated in the UK or a Scottish
partnership.

However, as regards section 7, the

requirement of a close connection
with the UK does not apply. Section
7(3) makes clear that a commercial
organisation can be liable for conduct
amounting to a section 1 or 6 offence
on the part of a person who is neither
a UK national or resident in the UK, nor
a body incorporated or formed in the
UK. In addition, section 12(5) provides
that it does not matter whether the
acts or omissions which form part of the
section 7 offence take part in the UK or
elsewhere. So, provided the organisation
is incorporated or formed in the UK,
or that the organisation carries on a
business or part of a business in the
UK (wherever in the world it may be
incorporated or formed) then UK courts
will have jurisdiction (see more on this at
paragraphs 34 to 36).

See section 5 and Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978 which provides that the word ‘person’ where used in an Act includes bodies
corporate and unincorporate. Note also the common law ‘identification principle’ as defined by cases such as Tesco Supermarkets v
Nattrass [1972] AC 153 which provides that corporate liability arises only where the offence is committed by a natural person who is the
directing mind or will of the organisation.

Although this particular offence is not relevant for the purposes of section 7.

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

Section 1:

Offences of bribing another person

Section 1 makes it an offence for a person

(‘P’) to offer, promise or give a financial or
other advantage to another person in one
of two cases:

•

Case 1

applies where P intends the

advantage to bring about the improper
performance by another person of
a relevant function or activity or to
reward such improper performance.

•

Case 2

applies where P knows or

believes that the acceptance of the
advantage offered, promised or given
in itself constitutes the improper
performance of a relevant function or
activity.

‘Improper performance’ is defined at

sections 3, 4 and 5. In summary, this
means performance which amounts to
a breach of an expectation that a person
will act in good faith, impartially, or in
accordance with a position of trust. The
offence applies to bribery relating to any
function of a public nature, connected
with a business, performed in the course
of a person’s employment or performed
on behalf of a company or another body
of persons. Therefore, bribery in both the
public and private sectors is covered.

For the purposes of deciding whether a

function or activity has been performed
improperly the test of what is expected
is a test of what a reasonable person in
the UK would expect in relation to the
performance of that function or activity.
Where the performance of the function
or activity is not subject to UK law (for

example, it takes place in a country
outside UK jurisdiction) then any local
custom or practice must be disregarded
– unless permitted or required by the
written law applicable to that particular
country. Written law means any written
constitution, provision made by or under
legislation applicable to the country
concerned or any judicial decision
evidenced in published written sources.

By way of illustration, in order to proceed

with a case under section 1 based on an
allegation that hospitality was intended
as a bribe, the prosecution would need to
show that the hospitality was intended to
induce conduct that amounts to a breach
of an expectation that a person will act in
good faith, impartially, or in accordance
with a position of trust. This would be
judged by what a reasonable person
in the UK thought. So, for example, an
invitation to foreign clients to attend a
Six Nations match at Twickenham as part
of a public relations exercise designed
to cement good relations or enhance
knowledge in the organisation’s field is
extremely unlikely to engage section
1 as there is unlikely to be evidence
of an intention to induce improper
performance of a relevant function.

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

Section 6:

Bribery of a foreign public official

Section 6 creates a standalone offence

of bribery of a foreign public official. The
offence is committed where a person
offers, promises or gives a financial or
other advantage to a foreign public
official with the intention of influencing
the official in the performance of his or
her official functions. The person offering,
promising or giving the advantage must
also intend to obtain or retain business or
an advantage in the conduct of business
by doing so. However, the offence is not
committed where the official is permitted
or required by the applicable written law
to be influenced by the advantage.

A ‘foreign public official’ includes

officials, whether elected or appointed,
who hold a legislative, administrative or
judicial position of any kind of a country
or territory outside the UK. It also
includes any person who performs public
functions in any branch of the national,
local or municipal government of such
a country or territory or who exercises
a public function for any public agency
or public enterprise of such a country or
territory, such as professionals working
for public health agencies and officers
exercising public functions in state-
owned enterprises. Foreign public officials
can also be an official or agent of a public
international organisation, such as the
UN or the World Bank.

Sections 1 and 6 may capture the same

conduct but will do so in different ways.
The policy that founds the offence at
section 6 is the need to prohibit the
influencing of decision making in the

context of publicly funded business
opportunities by the inducement of
personal enrichment of foreign public
officials or to others at the official’s
request, assent or acquiescence.
Such activity is very likely to involve
conduct which amounts to ‘improper
performance’ of a relevant function
or activity to which section 1 applies,
but, unlike section 1, section 6 does not
require proof of it or an intention to
induce it. This is because the exact nature
of the functions of persons regarded
as foreign public officials is often very
difficult to ascertain with any accuracy,
and the securing of evidence will often be
reliant on the co-operation of the state
any such officials serve. To require the
prosecution to rely entirely on section
1 would amount to a very significant
deficiency in the ability of the legislation
to address this particular mischief. That
said, it is not the Government’s intention
to criminalise behaviour where no such
mischief occurs, but merely to formulate
the offence to take account of the
evidential difficulties referred to above. In
view of its wide scope, and its role in the
new form of corporate liability at section
7, the Government offers the following
further explanation of issues arising from
the formulation of section 6.

Local law

For the purposes of section 6 prosecutors

will be required to show not only that
an ‘advantage’ was offered, promised
or given to the official or to another
person at the official’s request, assent or
acquiescence, but that the advantage was

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

one that the official was not permitted
or required to be influenced by as
determined by the written law applicable
to the foreign official.

In seeking tenders for publicly funded

contracts Governments often permit
or require those tendering for the
contract to offer, in addition to the
principal tender, some kind of additional
investment in the local economy
or benefit to the local community.
Such arrangements could in certain
circumstances amount to a financial
or other ‘advantage’ to a public official
or to another person at the official’s
request, assent or acquiescence. Where,
however, relevant ‘written law’ permits
or requires the official to be influenced
by such arrangements they will fall
outside the scope of the offence. So,
for example, where local planning
law permits community investment
or requires a foreign public official to
minimise the cost of public procurement
administration through cost sharing with
contractors, a prospective contractor’s
offer of free training is very unlikely
to engage section 6. In circumstances
where the additional investment would
amount to an advantage to a foreign
public official and the local law is silent
as to whether the official is permitted
or required to be influenced by it,
prosecutors will consider the public
interest in prosecuting. This will provide
an appropriate backstop in circumstances
where the evidence suggests that the
offer of additional investment is a
legitimate part of a tender exercise.

Hospitality, promotional, and other

business expenditure

Bona fide hospitality and promotional, or

other business expenditure which seeks
to improve the image of a commercial
organisation, better to present products
and services, or establish cordial
relations, is recognised as an established
and important part of doing business
and it is not the intention of the Act
to criminalise such behaviour. The
Government does not intend for the Act
to prohibit reasonable and proportionate
hospitality and promotional or other
similar business expenditure intended
for these purposes. It is, however, clear
that hospitality and promotional or
other similar business expenditure can be
employed as bribes.

In order to amount to a bribe under

section 6 there must be an intention for a
financial or other advantage to influence
the official in his or her official role and
thereby secure business or a business
advantage. In this regard, it may be in
some circumstances that hospitality or
promotional expenditure in the form
of travel and accommodation costs
does not even amount to ‘a financial or
other advantage’ to the relevant official
because it is a cost that would otherwise
be borne by the relevant foreign
Government rather than the official him
or herself.

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

Where the prosecution is able to

establish a financial or other advantage
has been offered, promised or given, it
must then show that there is a sufficient
connection between the advantage and
the intention to influence and secure
business or a business advantage. Where
the prosecution cannot prove this to
the requisite standard then no offence
under section 6 will be committed.
There may be direct evidence to support
the existence of this connection and
such evidence may indeed relate to
relatively modest expenditure. In
many cases, however, the question as
to whether such a connection can be
established will depend on the totality
of the evidence which takes into account
all of the surrounding circumstances.
It would include matters such as the
type and level of advantage offered,
the manner and form in which the
advantage is provided, and the level of
influence the particular foreign public
official has over awarding the business.
In this circumstantial context, the more
lavish the hospitality or the higher
the expenditure in relation to travel,
accommodation or other similar business
expenditure provided to a foreign public
official, then, generally, the greater the
inference that it is intended to influence
the official to grant business or a business
advantage in return.

The standards or norms applying in a

particular sector may also be relevant
here. However, simply providing
hospitality or promotional, or other
similar business expenditure which is
commensurate with such norms is not,
of itself, evidence that no bribe was paid
if there is other evidence to the contrary;
particularly if the norms in question are
extravagant.

Levels of expenditure will not, therefore,

be the only consideration in determining
whether a section 6 offence has been
committed. But in the absence of any
further evidence demonstrating the
required connection, it is unlikely, for
example, that incidental provision of a
routine business courtesy will raise the
inference that it was intended to have
a direct impact on decision making,
particularly where such hospitality is
commensurate with the reasonable and
proportionate norms for the particular
industry; e.g. the provision of airport to
hotel transfer services to facilitate an
on-site visit, or dining and tickets to an
event.

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

Some further examples might be helpful.

The provision by a UK mining company
of reasonable travel and accommodation
to allow foreign public officials to visit
their distant mining operations so that
those officials may be satisfied of the high
standard and safety of the company’s
installations and operating systems
are circumstances that fall outside the
intended scope of the offence. Flights and
accommodation to allow foreign public
officials to meet with senior executives
of a UK commercial organisation in New
York as a matter of genuine mutual
convenience, and some reasonable
hospitality for the individual and his or her
partner, such as fine dining and attendance
at a baseball match are facts that are, in
themselves, unlikely to raise the necessary
inferences. However, if the choice of New
York as the most convenient venue was in
doubt because the organisation’s senior
executives could easily have seen the
official with all the relevant documentation
when they had visited the relevant country
the previous week then the necessary
inference might be raised. Similarly,
supplementing information provided to
a foreign public official on a commercial
organisation’s background, track record
and expertise in providing private health
care with an offer of ordinary travel and
lodgings to enable a visit to a hospital run
by the commercial organisation is unlikely
to engage section 6. On the other hand,
the provision by that same commercial
organisation of a five-star holiday for the
foreign public official which is unrelated
to a demonstration of the organisation’s
services is, all things being equal, far more
likely to raise the necessary inference.

It may be that, as a result of the

introduction of the section 7 offence,
commercial organisations will review
their policies on hospitality and
promotional or other similar business
expenditure as part of the selection and
implementation of bribery prevention
procedures, so as to ensure that they
are seen to be acting both competitively
and fairly. It is, however, for individual
organisations, or business representative
bodies, to establish and disseminate
appropriate standards for hospitality and
promotional or other similar expenditure.

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

Section 7:

Failure of commercial organisations to

prevent bribery

A commercial organisation will be liable

to prosecution if a person associated
with it bribes another person intending
to obtain or retain business or an
advantage in the conduct of business
for that organisation. As set out above,
the commercial organisation will have a
full defence if it can show that despite a
particular case of bribery it nevertheless
had adequate procedures in place to
prevent persons associated with it from
bribing. In accordance with established
case law, the standard of proof which the
commercial organisation would need to
discharge in order to prove the defence,
in the event it was prosecuted, is the
balance of probabilities.

Commercial organisation

Only a ‘relevant commercial organisation’

can commit an offence under section 7 of
the Bribery Act. A ‘relevant commercial
organisation’ is defined at section 7(5)
as a body or partnership incorporated or
formed in the UK irrespective of where it
carries on a business, or an incorporated
body or partnership which carries on a
business or part of a business in the UK
irrespective of the place of incorporation
or formation. The key concept here is
that of an organisation which ‘carries on
a business’. The courts will be the final
arbiter as to whether an organisation
‘carries on a business’ in the UK taking
into account the particular facts in
individual cases. However, the following
paragraphs set out the Government’s
intention as regards the application of the
phrase.

As regards bodies incorporated, or

partnerships formed, in the UK, despite
the fact that there are many ways in
which a body corporate or a partnership
can pursue business objectives, the
Government expects that whether
such a body or partnership can be said
to be carrying on a business will be
answered by applying a common sense
approach. So long as the organisation in
question is incorporated (by whatever
means), or is a partnership, it does not
matter if it pursues primarily charitable
or educational aims or purely public
functions. It will be caught if it engages in
commercial activities, irrespective of the
purpose for which profits are made.

As regards bodies incorporated, or

partnerships formed, outside the
United Kingdom, whether such bodies
can properly be regarded as carrying
on a business or part of a business
‘in any part of the United Kingdom’
will again be answered by applying a
common sense approach. Where there
is a particular dispute as to whether a
business presence in the United Kingdom
satisfies the test in the Act, the final
arbiter, in any particular case, will be the
courts as set out above. However, the
Government anticipates that applying
a common sense approach would mean
that organisations that do not have a
demonstrable business presence in the
United Kingdom would not be caught.
The Government would not expect, for
example, the mere fact that a company’s
securities have been admitted to the
UK Listing Authority’s Official List and
therefore admitted to trading on the

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

London Stock Exchange, in itself, to
qualify that company as carrying on a
business or part of a business in the UK
and therefore falling within the definition
of a ‘relevant commercial organisation’
for the purposes of section 7. Likewise,
having a UK subsidiary will not, in itself,
mean that a parent company is carrying
on a business in the UK, since a subsidiary
may act independently of its parent or
other group companies.

Associated person

A commercial organisation is liable under

section 7 if a person ‘associated’ with
it bribes another person intending to
obtain or retain business or a business
advantage for the organisation. A
person associated with a commercial
organisation is defined at section 8 as a
person who ‘performs services’ for or on
behalf of the organisation. This person
can be an individual or an incorporated
or unincorporated body. Section 8
provides that the capacity in which a
person performs services for or on behalf
of the organisation does not matter, so
employees (who are presumed to be
performing services for their employer),
agents and subsidiaries are included.
Section 8(4), however, makes it clear that
the question as to whether a person is
performing services for an organisation is
to be determined by reference to all the
relevant circumstances and not merely by
reference to the nature of the relationship
between that person and the organisation.
The concept of a person who ‘performs
services for or on behalf of’ the organisation

is intended to give section 7 broad scope so
as to embrace the whole range of persons
connected to an organisation who might
be capable of committing bribery on the
organisation’s behalf.

This broad scope means that contractors

could be ‘associated’ persons to the
extent that they are performing services
for or on behalf of a commercial
organisation. Also, where a supplier can
properly be said to be performing services
for a commercial organisation rather than
simply acting as the seller of goods, it
may also be an ‘associated’ person.

Where a supply chain involves several

entities or a project is to be performed by
a prime contractor with a series of sub-
contractors, an organisation is likely only to
exercise control over its relationship with
its contractual counterparty. Indeed, the
organisation may only know the identity
of its contractual counterparty. It is likely
that persons who contract with that
counterparty will be performing services for
the counterparty and not for other persons
in the contractual chain. The principal way
in which commercial organisations may
decide to approach bribery risks which arise
as a result of a supply chain is by employing
the types of anti-bribery procedures
referred to elsewhere in this guidance
(e.g. risk-based due diligence and the use
of anti-bribery terms and conditions) in
the relationship with their contractual
counterparty, and by requesting that
counterparty to adopt a similar approach
with the next party in the chain.

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

As for joint ventures, these come in many

different forms, sometimes operating
through a separate legal entity, but
at other times through contractual
arrangements. In the case of a joint
venture operating through a separate
legal entity, a bribe paid by the joint
venture entity may lead to liability for a
member of the joint venture if the joint
venture is performing services for the
member and the bribe is paid with the
intention of benefiting that member.
However, the existence of a joint venture
entity will not of itself mean that it is
‘associated’ with any of its members. A
bribe paid on behalf of the joint venture
entity by one of its employees or agents
will therefore not trigger liability for
members of the joint venture simply by
virtue of them benefiting indirectly from
the bribe through their investment in or
ownership of the joint venture.

The situation will be different where

the joint venture is conducted through
a contractual arrangement. The degree
of control that a participant has over
that arrangement is likely to be one
of the ‘relevant circumstances’ that
would be taken into account in deciding
whether a person who paid a bribe in the
conduct of the joint venture business
was ‘performing services for or on behalf
of’ a participant in that arrangement. It
may be, for example, that an employee
of such a participant who has paid a bribe
in order to benefit his employer is not
to be regarded as a person ‘associated’
with all the other participants in the
joint venture. Ordinarily, the employee

of a participant will be presumed to be
a person performing services for and on
behalf of his employer. Likewise, an agent
engaged by a participant in a contractual
joint venture is likely to be regarded as a
person associated with that participant in
the absence of evidence that the agent is
acting on behalf of the contractual joint
venture as a whole.

Even if it can properly be said that

an agent, a subsidiary, or another
person acting for a member of a joint
venture, was performing services for
the organisation, an offence will be
committed only if that agent, subsidiary
or person intended to obtain or retain
business or an advantage in the conduct
of business for the organisation. The fact
that an organisation benefits indirectly
from a bribe is very unlikely, in itself, to
amount to proof of the specific intention
required by the offence. Without proof
of the required intention, liability will
not accrue through simple corporate
ownership or investment, or through
the payment of dividends or provision of
loans by a subsidiary to its parent. So, for
example, a bribe on behalf of a subsidiary
by one of its employees or agents will
not automatically involve liability on the
part of its parent company, or any other
subsidiaries of the parent company, if it
cannot be shown the employee or agent
intended to obtain or retain business
or a business advantage for the parent
company or other subsidiaries. This is
so even though the parent company or
subsidiaries may benefit indirectly from
the bribe. By the same token, liability

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

for a parent company could arise where
a subsidiary is the ‘person’ which pays a
bribe which it intends will result in the
parent company obtaining or retaining
business or vice versa.

The question of adequacy of bribery

prevention procedures will depend in
the final analysis on the facts of each
case, including matters such as the
level of control over the activities of the
associated person and the degree of risk
that requires mitigation. The scope of
the definition at section 8 needs to be
appreciated within this context. This point
is developed in more detail under the six
principles set out on pages 20 to 31.

Facilitation payments

Small bribes paid to facilitate routine

Government action – otherwise called
‘facilitation payments’ – could trigger
either the section 6 offence or, where
there is an intention to induce improper
conduct, including where the acceptance
of such payments is itself improper, the
section 1 offence and therefore potential
liability under section 7.

As was the case under the old law,

the Bribery Act does not (unlike US
foreign bribery law) provide any
exemption for such payments. The 2009
Recommendation of the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and
Development

recognises the corrosive

effect of facilitation payments and
asks adhering countries to discourage

companies from making such payments.
Exemptions in this context create
artificial distinctions that are difficult
to enforce, undermine corporate anti-
bribery procedures, confuse anti-bribery
communication with employees and
other associated persons, perpetuate an
existing ‘culture’ of bribery and have the
potential to be abused.

The Government does, however,

recognise the problems that commercial
organisations face in some parts of
the world and in certain sectors. The
eradication of facilitation payments
is recognised at the national and
international level as a long term
objective that will require economic
and social progress and sustained
commitment to the rule of law in those
parts of the world where the problem
is most prevalent. It will also require
collaboration between international
bodies, governments, the anti-bribery
lobby, business representative bodies
and sectoral organisations. Businesses
themselves also have a role to play and
the guidance below offers an indication
of how the problem may be addressed
through the selection of bribery
prevention procedures by commercial
organisations.

Issues relating to the prosecution of

facilitation payments in England and
Wales are referred to in the guidance of
the Director of the Serious Fraud Office
and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Recommendation of the Council for Further Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.

Bribery Act 2010: Joint Prosecution Guidance of the Director of the Serious Fraud Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

Duress

It is recognised that there are

circumstances in which individuals are
left with no alternative but to make
payments in order to protect against
loss of life, limb or liberty. The common
law defence of duress is very likely to be
available in such circumstances.

Prosecutorial discretion

Whether to prosecute an offence under

the Act is a matter for the prosecuting
authorities. In deciding whether to
proceed, prosecutors must first decide
if there is a sufficiency of evidence, and,
if so, whether a prosecution is in the
public interest. If the evidential test has
been met, prosecutors will consider the
general public interest in ensuring that
bribery is effectively dealt with. The more
serious the offence, the more likely it is
that a prosecution will be required in the
public interest.

In cases where hospitality, promotional

expenditure or facilitation payments do,
on their face, trigger the provisions of
the Act prosecutors will consider very
carefully what is in the public interest
before deciding whether to prosecute.
The operation of prosecutorial discretion
provides a degree of flexibility which
is helpful to ensure the just and fair
operation of the Act.

Factors that weigh for and against the

public interest in prosecuting in England
and Wales are referred to in the joint
guidance of the Director of the Serious
Fraud Office and the Director of Public
Prosecutions referred to at paragraph 47.

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

The six principles

The Government considers that procedures put in place
by commercial organisations wishing to prevent bribery
being committed on their behalf should be informed by six
principles. These are set out below. Commentary and guidance
on what procedures the application of the principles may
produce accompanies each principle.

These principles are not prescriptive. They are intended to be
flexible and outcome focussed, allowing for the huge variety of
circumstances that commercial organisations find themselves
in. Small organisations will, for example, face different
challenges to those faced by large multi-national enterprises.
Accordingly, the detail of how organisations might apply these
principles, taken as a whole, will vary, but the outcome should
always be robust and effective anti-bribery procedures.

As set out in more detail below, bribery prevention procedures
should be proportionate to risk. Although commercial
organisations with entirely domestic operations may require
bribery prevention procedures, we believe that as a general
proposition they will face lower risks of bribery on their behalf
by associated persons than the risks that operate in foreign
markets. In any event procedures put in place to mitigate
domestic bribery risks are likely to be similar if not the same
as those designed to mitigate those associated with foreign
markets.

A series of case studies based on hypothetical scenarios is
provided at Appendix A. These are designed to illustrate the
application of the principles for small, medium and large
organisations.

The Bribery Act 2010 – Guidance

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

Principle 1

Proportionate procedures

A commercial organisation’s procedures

to prevent bribery by persons associated

with it are proportionate to the bribery

risks it faces and to the nature, scale

and complexity of the commercial

organisation’s activities. They are also

clear, practical, accessible, effectively

implemented and enforced.

Commentary

1.1

The term ‘procedures’ is used in this

guidance to embrace both bribery
prevention policies and the procedures
which implement them. Policies
articulate a commercial organisation’s
anti-bribery stance, show how it will
be maintained and help to create an
anti-bribery culture. They are therefore
a necessary measure in the prevention
of bribery, but they will not achieve
that objective unless they are properly
implemented. Further guidance on
implementation is provided through
principles 2 to 6.

1.2

Adequate bribery prevention procedures

ought to be proportionate to the bribery
risks that the organisation faces. An initial
assessment of risk across the organisation
is therefore a necessary first step. To a
certain extent the level of risk will be
linked to the size of the organisation and
the nature and complexity of its business,
but size will not be the only determining
factor. Some small organisations can
face quite significant risks, and will
need more extensive procedures than
their counterparts facing limited risks.
However, small organisations are unlikely
to need procedures that are as extensive
as those of a large multi-national
organisation. For example, a very small

business may be able to rely heavily on
periodic oral briefings to communicate
its policies while a large one may need to
rely on extensive written communication.

1.3

The level of risk that organisations face

will also vary with the type and nature
of the persons associated with it. For
example, a commercial organisation
that properly assesses that there is no
risk of bribery on the part of one of its
associated persons will accordingly
require nothing in the way of procedures
to prevent bribery in the context of that
relationship. By the same token the
bribery risks associated with reliance
on a third party agent representing a
commercial organisation in negotiations
with foreign public officials may be
assessed as significant and accordingly
require much more in the way of
procedures to mitigate those risks.
Organisations are likely to need to select
procedures to cover a broad range of
risks but any consideration by a court
in an individual case of the adequacy of
procedures is likely necessarily to focus
on those procedures designed to prevent
bribery on the part of the associated
person committing the offence in question.

1.4

Bribery prevention procedures may

be stand alone or form part of wider
guidance, for example on recruitment or
on managing a tender process in public
procurement. Whatever the chosen
model, the procedures should seek to
ensure there is a practical and realistic
means of achieving the organisation’s
stated anti-bribery policy objectives
across all of the organisation’s functions.

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

1.5

The Government recognises that applying

these procedures retrospectively to
existing associated persons is more
difficult, but this should be done over
time, adopting a risk-based approach
and with due allowance for what is
practicable and the level of control over
existing arrangements.

Procedures

1.6

Commercial organisations’ bribery

prevention policies are likely to include
certain common elements. As an indicative
and not exhaustive list, an organisation
may wish to cover in its policies:

•

its commitment to bribery prevention

(see Principle 2)

•

its general approach to mitigation

of specific bribery risks, such as
those arising from the conduct of
intermediaries and agents, or those
associated with hospitality and
promotional expenditure, facilitation
payments or political and charitable
donations or contributions; (see
Principle 3 on risk assessment)

•

an overview of its strategy to

implement its bribery prevention
policies.

1.7

The procedures put in place to implement

an organisation’s bribery prevention
policies should be designed to mitigate
identified risks as well as to prevent
deliberate unethical conduct on the part
of associated persons. The following
is an indicative and not exhaustive list
of the topics that bribery prevention
procedures might embrace depending on
the particular risks faced:

•

The involvement of the organisation’s top-

level management (see Principle 2).

•

Risk assessment procedures

(see Principle 3).

•

Due diligence of existing or prospective

associated persons (see Principle 4).

•

The provision of gifts, hospitality and

promotional expenditure; charitable
and political donations; or demands for
facilitation payments.

•

Direct and indirect employment, including

recruitment, terms and conditions,
disciplinary action and remuneration.

•

Governance of business relationships with

all other associated persons including pre
and post contractual agreements.

•

Financial and commercial controls such

as adequate bookkeeping, auditing and
approval of expenditure.

•

Transparency of transactions and

disclosure of information.

•

Decision making, such as delegation

of authority procedures, separation of
functions and the avoidance of conflicts of
interest.

•

Enforcement, detailing discipline processes

and sanctions for breaches of the
organisation’s anti-bribery rules.

•

The reporting of bribery including ‘speak

up’ or ‘whistle blowing’ procedures.

•

The detail of the process by which the

organisation plans to implement its bribery
prevention procedures, for example, how its
policy will be applied to individual projects
and to different parts of the organisation.

•

The communication of the organisation’s

policies and procedures, and training in
their application (see Principle 5).

•

The monitoring, review and evaluation

of bribery prevention procedures (see
Principle 6).

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

Principle 2

Top-level commitment

The top-level management of a

commercial organisation (be it a board

of directors, the owners or any other

equivalent body or person) are committed

to preventing bribery by persons

associated with it. They foster a culture

within the organisation in which bribery is

never acceptable.

Commentary

2.1

Those at the top of an organisation are

in the best position to foster a culture of
integrity where bribery is unacceptable.
The purpose of this principle is to
encourage the involvement of top-level
management in the determination of
bribery prevention procedures. It is also
to encourage top-level involvement
in any key decision making relating to
bribery risk where that is appropriate for
the organisation’s management structure.

Procedures

2.2

Whatever the size, structure or market

of a commercial organisation, top-
level management commitment
to bribery prevention is likely to
include (1) communication of the
organisation’s anti-bribery stance, and
(2) an appropriate degree of involvement
in developing bribery prevention
procedures.

Internal and external

communication of the commitment

to zero tolerance to bribery

2.3

This could take a variety of forms.

A formal statement appropriately
communicated can be very effective in
establishing an anti-bribery culture within
an organisation. Communication might

be tailored to different audiences. The
statement would probably need to be
drawn to people’s attention on a periodic
basis and could be generally available,
for example on an organisation’s intranet
and/or internet site. Effective formal
statements that demonstrate top level
commitment are likely to include:

•

a commitment to carry out business

fairly, honestly and openly

•

a commitment to zero tolerance

towards bribery

•

the consequences of breaching the

policy for employees and managers

•

for other associated persons

the consequences of breaching
contractual provisions relating to
bribery prevention (this could include
a reference to avoiding doing business
with others who do not commit to
doing business without bribery as a
‘best practice’ objective)

•

articulation of the business benefits

of rejecting bribery (reputational,
customer and business partner
confidence)

•

reference to the range of bribery

prevention procedures the commercial
organisation has or is putting in
place, including any protection and
procedures for confidential reporting
of bribery (whistle-blowing)

•

key individuals and departments

involved in the development and
implementation of the organisation’s
bribery prevention procedures

•

reference to the organisation’s

involvement in any collective action
against bribery in, for example, the
same business sector.

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

Top-level involvement in bribery

prevention

2.4

Effective leadership in bribery

prevention will take a variety of forms
appropriate for and proportionate to
the organisation’s size, management
structure and circumstances. In smaller
organisations a proportionate response
may require top-level managers to
be personally involved in initiating,
developing and implementing bribery
prevention procedures and bribery
critical decision making. In a large multi-
national organisation the board should be
responsible for setting bribery prevention
policies, tasking management to design,
operate and monitor bribery prevention
procedures, and keeping these policies
and procedures under regular review. But
whatever the appropriate model, top-
level engagement is likely to reflect the
following elements:

•

Selection and training of senior

managers to lead anti-bribery work
where appropriate.

•

Leadership on key measures such as a

code of conduct.

•

Endorsement of all bribery prevention

related publications.

•

Leadership in awareness raising and

encouraging transparent dialogue
throughout the organisation so as to
seek to ensure effective dissemination
of anti-bribery policies and procedures
to employees, subsidiaries, and
associated persons, etc.

•

Engagement with relevant associated

persons and external bodies, such as
sectoral organisations and the media,
to help articulate the organisation’s
policies.

•

Specific involvement in high profile

and critical decision making where
appropriate.

•

Assurance of risk assessment.

•

General oversight of breaches of

procedures and the provision of
feedback to the board or equivalent,
where appropriate, on levels of
compliance.

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

Principle 3

Risk Assessment

The commercial organisation assesses

the nature and extent of its exposure to

potential external and internal risks of

bribery on its behalf by persons associated

with it. The assessment is periodic,

informed and documented.

Commentary

3.1

For many commercial organisations this

principle will manifest itself as part of
a more general risk assessment carried
out in relation to business objectives.
For others, its application may produce
a more specific stand alone bribery
risk assessment. The purpose of this
principle is to promote the adoption
of risk assessment procedures that are
proportionate to the organisation’s
size and structure and to the nature,
scale and location of its activities. But
whatever approach is adopted the fuller
the understanding of the bribery risks an
organisation faces the more effective its
efforts to prevent bribery are likely to be.

3.2

Some aspects of risk assessment involve

procedures that fall within the generally
accepted meaning of the term ‘due
diligence’. The role of due diligence as a
risk mitigation tool is separately dealt
with under Principle 4.

Procedures

3.3

Risk assessment procedures that enable

the commercial organisation accurately
to identify and prioritise the risks it
faces will, whatever its size, activities,
customers or markets, usually reflect a
few basic characteristics. These are:

•

Oversight of the risk assessment by

top level management.

•

Appropriate resourcing – this should

reflect the scale of the organisation’s
business and the need to identify and
prioritise all relevant risks.

•

Identification of the internal and

external information sources that
will enable risk to be assessed and
reviewed.

•

Due diligence enquiries

(see Principle 4).

•

Accurate and appropriate

documentation of the risk assessment
and its conclusions.

3.4

As a commercial organisation’s business

evolves, so will the bribery risks it faces and
hence so should its risk assessment. For
example, the risk assessment that applies
to a commercial organisation’s domestic
operations might not apply when it enters a
new market in a part of the world in which
it has not done business before
(see Principle 6 for more on this).

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

Commonly encountered risks

3.5

Commonly encountered external risks

can be categorised into five broad groups
– country, sectoral, transaction, business
opportunity and business partnership:

•

Country risk:

this is evidenced by

perceived high levels of corruption, an
absence of effectively implemented
anti-bribery legislation and a failure of
the foreign government, media, local
business community and civil society
effectively to promote transparent
procurement and investment policies.

•

Sectoral risk:

some sectors are higher

risk than others. Higher risk sectors
include the extractive industries and the
large scale infrastructure sector.

•

Transaction risk:

certain types of

transaction give rise to higher risks,
for example, charitable or political
contributions, licences and permits,
and transactions relating to public
procurement.

•

Business opportunity risk:

such risks

might arise in high value projects
or with projects involving many
contractors or intermediaries; or with
projects which are not apparently
undertaken at market prices, or which
do not have a clear legitimate objective.

•

Business partnership risk:

certain

relationships may involve higher risk, for
example, the use of intermediaries in
transactions with foreign public officials;
consortia or joint venture partners; and
relationships with politically exposed
persons where the proposed business
relationship involves, or is linked to, a
prominent public official.

3.6

An assessment of external bribery risks

is intended to help decide how those
risks can be mitigated by procedures
governing the relevant operations or
business relationships; but a bribery risk
assessment should also examine the
extent to which internal structures or
procedures may themselves add to the
level of risk. Commonly encountered
internal factors may include:

•

deficiencies in employee training, skills

and knowledge

•

bonus culture that rewards excessive

risk taking

•

lack of clarity in the organisation’s

policies on, and procedures for,
hospitality and promotional
expenditure, and political or charitable
contributions

•

lack of clear financial controls

•

lack of a clear anti-bribery message

from the top-level management.

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

Principle 4

Due diligence

The commercial organisation applies due

diligence procedures, taking a proportionate

and risk based approach, in respect of

persons who perform or will perform

services for or on behalf of the organisation,

in order to mitigate identified bribery risks.

Commentary

4.1

Due diligence is firmly established as an

element of corporate good governance
and it is envisaged that due diligence
related to bribery prevention will often
form part of a wider due diligence
framework. Due diligence procedures are
both a form of bribery risk assessment
(see Principle 3) and a means of
mitigating a risk. By way of illustration,
a commercial organisation may identify
risks that as a general proposition attach
to doing business in reliance upon
local third party intermediaries. Due
diligence of specific prospective third
party intermediaries could significantly
mitigate these risks. The significance of
the role of due diligence in bribery risk
mitigation justifies its inclusion here as a
Principle in its own right.

4.2

The purpose of this Principle is to

encourage commercial organisations to
put in place due diligence procedures
that adequately inform the application
of proportionate measures designed to
prevent persons associated with them
from bribing on their behalf.

Procedures

4.3

As this guidance emphasises throughout,

due diligence procedures should be
proportionate to the identified risk.
They can also be undertaken internally

or by external consultants. A person
‘associated’ with a commercial
organisation as set out at section 8 of
the Bribery Act includes any person
performing services for a commercial
organisation. As explained at paragraphs
3

to 4

in the section ‘Government

Policy and section 7’, the scope of this
definition is broad and can embrace a
wide range of business relationships. But
the appropriate level of due diligence
to prevent bribery will vary enormously
depending on the risks arising from the
particular relationship. So, for example,
the appropriate level of due diligence
required by a commercial organisation
when contracting for the performance of
information technology services may be
low, to reflect low risks of bribery on its
behalf. In contrast, an organisation that
is selecting an intermediary to assist in
establishing a business in foreign markets
will typically require a much higher level
of due diligence to mitigate the risks of
bribery on its behalf.

4.4

Organisations will need to take

considerable care in entering into
certain business relationships, due
to the particular circumstances in
which the relationships come into
existence. An example is where local
law or convention dictates the use of
local agents in circumstances where
it may be difficult for a commercial
organisation to extricate itself from a
business relationship once established.
The importance of thorough due
diligence and risk mitigation prior to
any commitment are paramount in such
circumstances. Another relationship

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

that carries particularly important
due diligence implications is a merger
of commercial organisations or an
acquisition of one by another.

4.5

‘Due diligence’ for the purposes of

Principle 4 should be conducted using
a risk-based approach (as referred to
on page 27). For example, in lower risk
situations, commercial organisations
may decide that there is no need
to conduct much in the way of due
diligence. In higher risk situations,
due diligence may include conducting
direct interrogative enquiries, indirect
investigations, or general research on
proposed associated persons. Appraisal
and continued monitoring of recruited or
engaged ‘associated’ persons may also be
required, proportionate to the identified
risks. Generally, more information is
likely to be required from prospective
and existing associated persons that
are incorporated (e.g. companies) than
from individuals. This is because on a
basic level more individuals are likely
to be involved in the performance of
services by a company and the exact
nature of the roles of such individuals
or other connected bodies may not be
immediately obvious. Accordingly, due
diligence may involve direct requests
for details on the background, expertise
and business experience, of relevant
individuals. This information can then
be verified through research and the
following up of references, etc.

4.6

A commercial organisation’s employees

are presumed to be persons ‘associated’
with the organisation for the purposes
of the Bribery Act. The organisation
may wish, therefore, to incorporate in
its recruitment and human resources
procedures an appropriate level of due
diligence to mitigate the risks of bribery
being undertaken by employees which
is proportionate to the risk associated
with the post in question. Due diligence is
unlikely to be needed in relation to lower
risk posts.

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

Principle 5

Communication (including training)

The commercial organisation seeks

to ensure that its bribery prevention

policies and procedures are embedded

and understood throughout the

organisation through internal and external

communication, including training, that is

proportionate to the risks it faces.

Commentary

5.1

Communication and training deters

bribery by associated persons by
enhancing awareness and understanding
of a commercial organisation’s
procedures and to the organisation’s
commitment to their proper application.
Making information available assists in
more effective monitoring, evaluation
and review of bribery prevention
procedures. Training provides the
knowledge and skills needed to employ
the organisation’s procedures and deal
with any bribery related problems or
issues that may arise.

Procedures

Communication

5.2

The content, language and tone

of communications for internal
consumption may vary from that for
external use in response to the different
relationship the audience has with the
commercial organisation. The nature of
communication will vary enormously
between commercial organisations in
accordance with the different bribery
risks faced, the size of the organisation
and the scale and nature of its activities.

5.3

Internal communications should convey

the ‘tone from the top’ but are also likely
to focus on the implementation of the
organisation’s policies and procedures
and the implications for employees.
Such communication includes policies
on particular areas such as decision
making, financial control, hospitality and
promotional expenditure, facilitation
payments, training, charitable and
political donations and penalties for
breach of rules and the articulation of
management roles at different levels.
Another important aspect of internal
communications is the establishment
of a secure, confidential and accessible
means for internal or external parties
to raise concerns about bribery on the
part of associated persons, to provide
suggestions for improvement of bribery
prevention procedures and controls and
for requesting advice. These so called
‘speak up’ procedures can amount
to a very helpful management tool
for commercial organisations with
diverse operations that may be in many
countries. If these procedures are to
be effective there must be adequate
protection for those reporting concerns.

5.4

External communication of bribery

prevention policies through a statement
or codes of conduct, for example,
can reassure existing and prospective
associated persons and can act as a
deterrent to those intending to bribe on
a commercial organisation’s behalf. Such
communications can include information
on bribery prevention procedures and
controls, sanctions, results of internal

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

surveys, rules governing recruitment,
procurement and tendering. A
commercial organisation may consider
it proportionate and appropriate to
communicate its anti-bribery policies
and commitment to them to a wider
audience, such as other organisations in
its sector and to sectoral organisations
that would fall outside the scope of the
range of its associated persons, or to the
general public.

Training

5.5

Like all procedures training should be

proportionate to risk but some training is
likely to be effective in firmly establishing
an anti-bribery culture whatever the level
of risk. Training may take the form of
education and awareness raising about
the threats posed by bribery in general
and in the sector or areas in which the
organisation operates in particular, and
the various ways it is being addressed.

5.6

General training could be mandatory

for new employees or for agents (on
a weighted risk basis) as part of an
induction process, but it should also be
tailored to the specific risks associated
with specific posts. Consideration should
also be given to tailoring training to the
special needs of those involved in any
‘speak up’ procedures, and higher risk
functions such as purchasing, contracting,
distribution and marketing, and working
in high risk countries. Effective training is
continuous, and regularly monitored and
evaluated.

5.7

It may be appropriate to require

associated persons to undergo training.
This will be particularly relevant for high
risk associated persons. In any event,
organisations may wish to encourage
associated persons to adopt bribery
prevention training.

5.8

Nowadays there are many different

training formats available in addition
to the traditional classroom or seminar
formats, such as e-learning and other
web-based tools. But whatever the
format, the training ought to achieve
its objective of ensuring that those
participating in it develop a firm
understanding of what the relevant
policies and procedures mean in practice
for them.

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

Principle 6

Monitoring and review

The commercial organisation monitors and

reviews procedures designed to prevent

bribery by persons associated with it and

makes improvements where necessary.

Commentary

6.1

The bribery risks that a commercial

organisation faces may change over
time, as may the nature and scale of its
activities, so the procedures required
to mitigate those risks are also likely
to change. Commercial organisations
will therefore wish to consider how to
monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of
their bribery prevention procedures and
adapt them where necessary. In addition
to regular monitoring, an organisation
might want to review its processes in
response to other stimuli, for example
governmental changes in countries in
which they operate, an incident of bribery
or negative press reports.

Procedures

6.2

There is a wide range of internal and

external review mechanisms which
commercial organisations could consider
using. Systems set up to deter, detect
and investigate bribery, and monitor the
ethical quality of transactions, such as
internal financial control mechanisms,
will help provide insight into the
effectiveness of procedures designed
to prevent bribery. Staff surveys,
questionnaires and feedback from
training can also provide an important
source of information on effectiveness
and a means by which employees and
other associated persons can inform
continuing improvement of anti-bribery
policies.

6.3

Organisations could also consider

formal periodic reviews and reports for
top-level management. Organisations
could also draw on information on other
organisations’ practices, for example
relevant trade bodies or regulators
might highlight examples of good or bad
practice in their publications.

6.4

In addition, organisations might wish

to consider seeking some form of
external verification or assurance of the
effectiveness of anti-bribery procedures.
Some organisations may be able to apply
for certified compliance with one of
the independently-verified anti-bribery
standards maintained by industrial sector
associations or multilateral bodies.
However, such certification may not
necessarily mean that a commercial
organisation’s bribery prevention
procedures are ‘adequate’ for all purposes
where an offence under section 7 of the
Bribery Act could be charged.

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Guidance

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Appendix A: Case Studies

Appendix A

Bribery Act 2010 case studies

Introduction

These case studies (which do not form part
of the guidance issued under section 9 of
the Act) look at how the application of
the six principles might relate to a number
of hypothetical scenarios commercial
organisations may encounter. The
Government believes that this illustrative
context can assist commercial organisations in
deciding what procedures to prevent persons
associated with them from bribing on their
behalf might be most suitable to their needs.

These case studies are illustrative. They
are intended to complement the guidance.
They do not replace or supersede any of the
principles. The considerations set out below
merely show in some circumstances how
the principles can be applied, and should
not be seen as standard setting, establishing
any presumption, reflecting a minimum
baseline of action or being appropriate for all
organisations whatever their size. Accordingly,
the considerations set out below are not:

•

comprehensive of all considerations in all

circumstances

•

conclusive of adequate procedures

•

conclusive of inadequate procedures if not

all of the considerations are considered
and/or applied.

All but one of these case studies focus on
bribery risks associated with foreign markets.
This is because bribery risks associated with
foreign markets are generally higher than
those associated with domestic markets.
Accordingly case studies focussing on foreign
markets are better suited as vehicles for the
illustration of bribery prevention procedures.

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Appendix A: Case Studies

Case study 1 – Principle 1

Facilitation payments

A medium sized company (‘A’) has acquired
a new customer in a foreign country (‘B’)
where it operates through its agent company
(‘C’). Its bribery risk assessment has identified
facilitation payments as a significant problem
in securing reliable importation into B and
transport to its new customer’s manufacturing
locations. These sometimes take the form of
‘inspection fees’ required before B’s import
inspectors will issue a certificate of inspection
and thereby facilitate the clearance of goods.

A could consider any or a combination of the
following:

•

Communication of its policy of non-
payment of facilitation payments to C
and its staff.

•

Seeking advice on the law of B relating
to certificates of inspection and fees for
these to differentiate between properly
payable fees and disguised requests for
facilitation payments.

•

Building realistic timescales into the
planning of the project so that shipping,
importation and delivery schedules allow
where feasible for resisting and testing
demands for facilitation payments.

•

Requesting that C train its staff about
resisting demands for facilitation
payments and the relevant local law and
provisions of the Bribery Act 2010.

•

Proposing or including as part of any
contractual arrangement certain
procedures for C and its staff, which may
include one or more of the following, if
appropriate:

•

questioning of legitimacy of demands

•

requesting receipts and identification

details of the official making the
demand

•

requests to consult with superior

officials

•

trying to avoid paying ‘inspection

fees’ (if not properly due) in cash and
directly to an official

•

informing those demanding payments

that compliance with the demand
may mean that A (and possibly C) will
commit an offence under UK law

•

informing those demanding payments

that it will be necessary for C to inform
the UK embassy of the demand.

•

Maintaining close liaison with C so as to
keep abreast of any local developments
that may provide solutions and
encouraging C to develop its own
strategies based on local knowledge.

•

Use of any UK diplomatic channels
or participation in locally active non-
governmental organisations, so as to
apply pressure on the authorities of
B to take action to stop demands for
facilitation payments.

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Appendix A: Case Studies

Case study 2 – Principle 1

Proportionate Procedures

A small to medium sized installation company
is operating entirely within the United
Kingdom domestic market. It relies to varying
degrees on independent consultants to
facilitate business opportunities and to assist
in the preparation of both pre-qualification
submissions and formal tenders in seeking
new business. Such consultants work on an
arms-length-fee-plus-expenses basis. They are
engaged by sales staff and selected because of
their extensive network of business contacts
and the specialist information they have.
The reason for engaging them is to enhance
the company’s prospects of being included
in tender and pre-qualification lists and of
being selected as main or sub-contractors.
The reliance on consultants and, in particular,
difficulties in monitoring expenditure which
sometimes involves cash transactions has
been identified by the company as a source
of medium to high risk of bribery being
undertaken on the company’s behalf.

In seeking to mitigate these risks the company
could consider any or a combination of the
following:

•

Communication of a policy statement
committing it to transparency and zero
tolerance of bribery in pursuit of its
business objectives. The statement could
be communicated to the company’s
employees, known consultants and
external contacts, such as sectoral bodies
and local chambers of commerce.

•

Firming up its due diligence before
engaging consultants. This could include
making enquiries through business
contacts, local chambers of commerce,
business associations, or internet

searches and following up any business
references and financial statements.

•

Considering firming up the terms of
the consultants’ contracts so that they
reflect a commitment to zero tolerance
of bribery, set clear criteria for provision
of bona fide hospitality on the company’s
behalf and define in detail the basis of
remuneration, including expenses.

•

Consider making consultants’ contracts
subject to periodic review and renewal.

•

Drawing up key points guidance on
preventing bribery for its sales staff and
all other staff involved in bidding for
business and when engaging consultants

•

Periodically emphasising these policies
and procedures at meetings – for
example, this might form a standing item
on meeting agendas every few months.

•

Providing a confidential means for staff
and external business contacts to air any
suspicions of the use of bribery on the
company’s behalf.

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Appendix A: Case Studies

Case study 3 – Principles 1 and 6

Joint venture

A medium sized company (‘D’) is interested
in significant foreign mineral deposits. D
proposes to enter into a joint venture with a
local mining company (‘E’). It is proposed that
D and E would have an equal holding in the
joint venture company (‘DE’). D identifies the
necessary interaction between DE and local
public officials as a source of significant risks
of bribery.

D could consider negotiating for the inclusion
of any or a combination of the following
bribery prevention procedures into the
agreement setting up DE:

•

Parity of representation on the board of
DE.

•

That DE put in place measures designed
to ensure compliance with all applicable
bribery and corruption laws. These
measures might cover such issues as:

•

gifts and hospitality

•

agreed decision making rules

•

procurement

•

engagement of third parties, including

due diligence requirements

•

conduct of relations with public

officials

•

training for staff in high risk positions

•

record keeping and accounting.

•

The establishment of an audit committee
with at least one representative of each
of D and E that has the power to view
accounts and certain expenditure and
prepare regular reports.

•

Binding commitments by D and E to
comply with all applicable bribery laws
in relation to the operation of DE, with
a breach by either D or E being a breach
of the agreement between them. Where
such a breach is a material breach this
could lead to termination or other
similarly significant consequences.

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Appendix A: Case Studies

Case study 4 – Principles 1 and 5

Hospitality and Promotional expenditure

A firm of engineers (‘F’) maintains a
programme of annual events providing
entertainment, quality dining and attendance
at various sporting occasions, as an expression
of appreciation of its long association with
its business partners. Private bodies and
individuals are happy to meet their own travel
and accommodation costs associated with
attending these events. The costs of the travel
and accommodation of any foreign public
officials attending are, however, met by F.

F could consider any or a combination of the
following:

•

Conducting a bribery risk assessment
relating to its dealings with business
partners and foreign public officials and
in particular the provision of hospitality
and promotional expenditure.

•

Publication of a policy statement
committing it to transparent,
proportionate, reasonable and bona fide
hospitality and promotional expenditure.

•

The issue of internal guidance on
procedures that apply to the provision
of hospitality and/or promotional
expenditure providing:

•

that any procedures are designed

to seek to ensure transparency and
conformity with any relevant laws and
codes applying to F

•

that any procedures are designed

to seek to ensure transparency and
conformity with the relevant laws
and codes applying to foreign public
officials

•

that any hospitality should reflect

a desire to cement good relations
and show appreciation, and that
promotional expenditure should

seek to improve the image of F as a
commercial organisation, to better
present its products or services, or
establish cordial relations

•

that the recipient should not be given

the impression that they are under
an obligation to confer any business
advantage or that the recipient’s
independence will be affected

•

criteria to be applied when deciding

the appropriate levels of hospitality
for both private and public business
partners, clients, suppliers and
foreign public officials and the type
of hospitality that is appropriate in
different sets of circumstances

•

that provision of hospitality for public

officials be cleared with the relevant
public body so that it is clear who and
what the hospitality is for

•

for expenditure over certain limits,

approval by an appropriately senior
level of management may be a
relevant consideration

•

accounting (book-keeping, orders,

invoices, delivery notes, etc).

•

Regular monitoring, review and
evaluation of internal procedures and
compliance with them.

•

Appropriate training and supervision
provided to staff.

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Appendix A: Case Studies

Case study 5 – Principle 3

Assessing risks

A small specialist manufacturer is seeking to
expand its business in one of several emerging
markets, all of which offer comparable
opportunities. It has no specialist risk
assessment expertise and is unsure how to
go about assessing the risks of entering a new
market.

The small manufacturer could consider any or
a combination of the following:

•

Incorporating an assessment of bribery
risk into research to identify the optimum
market for expansion.

•

Seeking advice from UK diplomatic
services and government organisations
such as UK Trade and Investment.

•

Consulting general country assessments
undertaken by local chambers of
commerce, relevant non-governmental
organisations and sectoral organisations.

•

Seeking advice from industry
representatives.

•

Following up any general or specialist
advice with further independent research.

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Appendix A: Case Studies

Case study 6 – Principle 4

Due diligence of agents

A medium to large sized manufacturer of
specialist equipment (‘G’) has an opportunity
to enter an emerging market in a foreign
country (‘H’) by way of a government contract
to supply equipment to the state. Local
convention requires any foreign commercial
organisations to operate through a local
agent. G is concerned to appoint a reputable
agent and ensure that the risk of bribery being
used to develop its business in the market is
minimised.

G could consider any or a combination of the
following:

•

Compiling a suitable questionnaire for
potential agents requiring for example,
details of ownership if not an individual;
CVs and references for those involved
in performing the proposed service;
details of any directorships held, existing
partnerships and third party relationships
and any relevant judicial or regulatory
findings.

•

Having a clear statement of the precise
nature of the services offered, costs,
commissions, fees and the preferred
means of remuneration.

•

Undertaking research, including internet
searches, of the prospective agents and,
if a corporate body, of every person
identified as having a degree of control
over its affairs.

•

Making enquiries with the relevant
authorities in H to verify the information
received in response to the questionnaire.

•

Following up references and clarifying
any matters arising from the
questionnaire or any other information
received with the agents, arranging face
to face meetings where appropriate.

•

Requesting sight or evidence of any
potential agent’s own anti-bribery
policies and, where a corporate body,
reporting procedures and records.

•

Being alert to key commercial questions
such as:

•

Is the agent really required?

•

Does the agent have the required

expertise?

•

Are they interacting with or closely

connected to public officials?

•

Is what you are proposing to pay

reasonable and commercial?

•

Renewing due diligence enquiries on a
periodic basis if an agent is appointed.

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Appendix A: Case Studies

Case study 7 – Principle 5

Communicating and training

A small UK manufacturer of specialist
equipment (‘J’) has engaged an individual as
a local agent and adviser (‘K’) to assist with
winning a contract and developing its business
in a foreign country where the risk of bribery is
assessed as high.

J could consider any or a combination of the
following:

•

Making employees of J engaged in
bidding for business fully aware of J’s
anti-bribery statement, code of conduct
and, where appropriate, that details of
its anti-bribery policies are included in its
tender.

•

Including suitable contractual terms
on bribery prevention measures in the
agreement between J and K, for example:
requiring K not to offer or pay bribes;
giving J the ability to audit K’s activities
and expenditure; requiring K to report
any requests for bribes by officials to
J; and, in the event of suspicion arising
as to K’s activities, giving J the right to
terminate the arrangement.

•

Making employees of J fully aware
of policies and procedures applying
to relevant issues such as hospitality
and facilitation payments, including
all financial control mechanisms,
sanctions for any breaches of the rules
and instructions on how to report any
suspicious conduct.

•

Supplementing the information, where
appropriate, with specially prepared
training to J’s staff involved with the
foreign country.

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Appendix A: Case Studies

Case study 8 – Principle 1, 4 and 6

Community benefits and charitable donations

A company (‘L’) exports a range of seed
products to growers around the globe. Its
representative travels to a foreign country
(‘M’) to discuss with a local farming co-
operative the possible supply of a new
strain of wheat that is resistant to a disease
which recently swept the region. In the
meeting, the head of the co-operative tells
L’s representative about the problems which
the relative unavailability of antiretroviral
drugs cause locally in the face of a high HIV
infection rate.

In a subsequent meeting with an official of M
to discuss the approval of L’s new wheat strain
for import, the official suggests that L could
pay for the necessary antiretroviral drugs and
that this will be a very positive factor in the
Government’s consideration of the licence
to import the new seed strain. In a further
meeting, the same official states that L should
donate money to a certain charity suggested
by the official which, the official assures, will
then take the necessary steps to purchase and
distribute the drugs. L identifies this as raising
potential bribery risks.

L could consider any or a combination of the
following:

•

Making reasonable efforts to conduct
due diligence, including consultation with
staff members and any business partners
it has in country M in order to satisfy
itself that the suggested arrangement is
legitimate and in conformity with any
relevant laws and codes applying to the
foreign public official responsible for
approving the product. It could do this by
obtaining information on:

•

M’s local law on community benefits

as part of Government procurement
and, if no particular local law, the
official status and legitimacy of the
suggested arrangement

•

the particular charity in question

including its legal status, its reputation
in M, and whether it has conducted
similar projects, and

•

any connections the charity might

have with the foreign official in
question, if possible.

•

Adopting an internal communication plan
designed to ensure that any relationships
with charitable organisations are
conducted in a transparent and open
manner and do not raise any expectation
of the award of a contract or licence.

•

Adopting company-wide policies
and procedures about the selection
of charitable projects or initiatives
which are informed by appropriate risk
assessments.

•

Training and support for staff in
implementing the relevant policies
and procedures of communication
which allow issues to be reported and
compliance to be monitored.

•

If charitable donations made in country
M are routinely channelled through
government officials or to others at the
official’s request, a red flag should be
raised and L may seek to monitor the way
its contributions are ultimately applied,
or investigate alternative methods of
donation such as official ‘off-set’ or
‘community gain’ arrangements with the
government of M.

•

Evaluation of its policies relating to
charitable donations as part of its
next periodic review of its anti-bribery
procedures.

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Appendix A: Case Studies

Case study 9 – Principle 4

Due diligence of agents

A small UK company (‘N’) relies on agents
in country (‘P’) from which it imports local
high quality perishable produce and to which
it exports finished goods. The bribery risks it
faces arise entirely as a result of its reliance
on agents and their relationship with local
businessmen and officials. N is offered a new
business opportunity in P through a new
agent (‘Q’). An agreement with Q needs to be
concluded quickly.

N could consider any or a combination of the
following:

•

Conducting due diligence and background
checks on Q that are proportionate to
the risk before engaging Q; which could
include:

•

making enquiries through N’s business

contacts, local chambers of commerce
or business associations, or internet
searches

•

seeking business references and a

financial statement from Q and
reviewing Q’s CV to ensure Q has
suitable experience.

•

Considering how best to structure
the relationship with Q, including
how Q should be remunerated for its
services and how to seek to ensure Q’s
compliance with relevant laws and codes
applying to foreign public officials.

•

Making the contract with Q renewable
annually or periodically.

•

Travelling to P periodically to review the
agency situation.

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Appendix A: Case Studies

Case study 10 – Principle 2

Top level commitment

A small to medium sized component
manufacturer is seeking contracts in markets
abroad where there is a risk of bribery. As
part of its preparation, a senior manager has
devoted some time to participation in the
development of a sector wide anti-bribery
initiative.

The top level management of the
manufacturer could consider any or a
combination of the following:

•

The making of a clear statement
disseminated to its staff and key business
partners of its commitment to carry
out business fairly, honestly and openly,
referencing its key bribery prevention
procedures and its involvement in the
sectoral initiative.

•

Establishing a code of conduct that
includes suitable anti-bribery provisions
and making it accessible to staff and third
parties on its website.

•

Considering an internal launch of
a code of conduct, with a message
of commitment to it from senior
management.

•

Senior management emphasising among
the workforce and other associated
persons the importance of understanding
and applying the code of conduct and the
consequences of breaching the policy or
contractual provisions relating to bribery
prevention for employees and managers
and external associated persons.

•

Identifying someone of a suitable level of
seniority to be a point-person for queries
and issues relating to bribery risks.

The Bribery Act 2010 –

Appendix A: Case Studies

Case study 11

Proportionate procedures

A small export company operates through
agents in a number of different foreign
countries. Having identified bribery risks
associated with its reliance on agents it is
considering developing proportionate and risk
based bribery prevention procedures.

The company could consider any or a
combination of the following:

•

Using trade fairs and trade publications to
communicate periodically its anti-bribery
message and, where appropriate, some
detail of its policies and procedures.

•

Oral or written communication of its
bribery prevention intentions to all of its
agents.

•

Adopting measures designed to address
bribery on its behalf by associated
persons, such as:

•

requesting relevant information and

conducting background searches
on the internet against information
received

•

making sure references are in order

and followed up

•

including anti-bribery commitments in

any contract renewal

•

using existing internal arrangements

such as periodic staff meetings to raise
awareness of ‘red flags’ as regards
agents’ conduct, for example evasive
answers to straightforward requests
for information, overly elaborate
payment arrangements involving
further third parties, ad hoc or unusual
requests for expense reimbursement
not properly covered by accounting
procedures.

•

Making use of any external sources
of information (UKTI, sectoral
organisations) on bribery risks in
particular markets and using the data
to inform relationships with particular
agents.

•

Making sure staff have a confidential
means to raise any concerns about
bribery.

Document Outline