Doubtless anyone reading this will have heard about this Act, some will have read commentaries on it, others may have gone on courses or spoken to their lawyers or accountants about it.<\/p>\n
For those that haven’t gone beyond stage 1, perhaps these comments might whet your appetite.<\/p>\n
I first saw real-life reference to the Act some weeks back when looking at a questionnaire issued to vendors of a small business by solicitors acting for potential purchasers (for whom we also act). The section devoted to The Bribery Act comprised 17 core questions, the second asking for details of compliance procedures the vendor had put in place. I admit I laughed – there was no way on earth the vendor business would have the faintest idea what the lawyers were on about.<\/p>\n
I then attended an excellent course on the subject, by the end of which I had listed those of my clients who are highly likely to be exposed to it – not by anything they do or have done, but simply because of the business sectors they occupy and\/or their geographical trade. The list was too long for comfort.<\/p>\n
There’s a website that shows corruption risk by territory and by sector they’re worth a look. If you trade with nordic countries, in agriculture, IT or banking, your exposure’s likely to be low. But if you’re in mining, in Africa, well, it’s probably as bad as it gets. But Russia’s not much better, Italy’s not wonderful, and Greece is only marginally better than Albania.<\/p>\n
So what’s the risk? In basic terms, whether directly or indirectly through agents acting on your behalf, someone, somewhere may get a back-hander to facilitate your business. It may be as simple as expediting speedy customs clearance in time-honoured fashion. Under this Act, that’s considered corrupt, and the guilty party is not just the donee, it’s the donor and the organisation for whom the donor was acting. Penalties are pretty draconian – fines or up to 10 years free board and lodging.<\/p>\n
The rules are simple – if there’s been a bribe, there’s guilt. End of story.<\/p>\n
There is just one mitigation – those businesses that have provable “adequate procedures” to prevent bribery will almost certainly be in the clear.<\/p>\n
I won’t list what might qualify as “adequate procedures” – many will be case-specific. But one comment the speaker made is worth bearing in mind – “It’s not an offence to have no procedures in place. But if you haven’t got them, you won’t have a defence when you need one”.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Doubtless anyone reading this will have heard about this Act, some will have read commentaries on it, others may have gone on courses or spoken to their lawyers or accountants about it. For those that haven’t gone beyond stage 1, perhaps these comments might whet your appetite. I first saw real-life reference to the Act[…] <\/p>\n