Bribery Act 2010 Enforcement
I. Overview: Bribery Act 2010 Enforcement
The Bribery Act 2010 consolidates and modernizes bribery laws in the UK.
It covers:
Active bribery (offering/bribing),
Passive bribery (receiving/bribed),
Bribery of foreign public officials,
Failure of commercial organizations to prevent bribery by persons associated with them.
Enforcement is mainly by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), police, and other regulatory bodies.
The Act carries severe penalties: unlimited fines and imprisonment up to 10 years.
II. Key Sections
| Section | Description |
|---|---|
| s.1 | Bribing another person |
| s.2 | Being bribed |
| s.6 | Bribery of foreign public officials |
| s.7 | Failure of commercial organization to prevent bribery |
III. Landmark Enforcement Cases
1. SFO v. Rolls-Royce PLC (2017)
Facts:
Rolls-Royce was investigated for widespread bribery involving overseas agents and contracts.
Allegations included paying millions to secure contracts in multiple countries.
Enforcement Action:
Rolls-Royce admitted to bribery offences under the Act.
They agreed to pay a record £497 million in penalties to settle the case with the SFO and US authorities.
Significance:
One of the largest enforcement actions under the Bribery Act.
Showed seriousness with which the SFO pursues corporate bribery.
Highlighted cross-border enforcement cooperation.
2. SFO v. Unaoil (2019)
Facts:
Unaoil, a Monaco-based company, was implicated in a global bribery scheme involving oil and gas contracts.
Executives were accused of paying bribes to foreign officials to secure contracts.
Enforcement Action:
Multiple arrests and prosecutions under the Act.
Highlighted complexity of bribery investigations and use of the Act to pursue foreign bribery.
Significance:
Emphasized Act’s extraterritorial reach, especially s.6 (foreign public officials).
Demonstrated importance of investigative partnerships.
3. SFO v. BAE Systems plc (2010, deferred prosecution agreement)
Facts:
Before the full enactment of the Bribery Act, BAE Systems faced allegations of bribery involving international defence contracts.
Although before the Act, its resolution shaped enforcement expectations.
Enforcement Action:
BAE entered a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), paying £30 million and agreeing to compliance reforms.
Significance:
Set tone for future enforcement under the Act.
Showed companies could avoid trial with cooperation and penalties.
4. R v. Tesco Stores Ltd (2018)
Facts:
Tesco faced allegations that a former executive bribed officials overseas to gain contracts.
The company was charged with failure to prevent bribery under s.7.
Enforcement Action:
Tesco pleaded guilty and paid fines.
Company enhanced compliance programs.
Significance:
Demonstrated how companies can be liable under corporate failure to prevent bribery.
Highlighted importance of adequate procedures.
5. SFO v. Serco Geografix Ltd (2021)
Facts:
Serco Geografix was charged for corrupt payments to a public official to secure government contracts.
Enforcement Action:
The company pleaded guilty to bribery offences.
Fines and reparations followed.
Significance:
Case reinforced strict liability for bribery in public contracts.
Demonstrated consequences of unethical practices in public sector procurement.
6. SFO v. XYZ Ltd (Hypothetical for Learning)
Facts:
XYZ Ltd was prosecuted for failing to prevent bribery by an overseas agent who paid foreign officials to secure contracts.
Enforcement Action:
XYZ Ltd was found liable under s.7.
Court emphasized company’s failure to implement adequate anti-bribery procedures.
Significance:
Reinforces the critical importance of companies adopting and enforcing anti-bribery policies.
The "adequate procedures" defense is central to avoiding liability.
IV. Summary Table
| Case | Key Issue | Enforcement Action | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rolls-Royce (2017) | Global bribery schemes | £497m penalty, admissions | Cross-border bribery, corporate accountability |
| Unaoil (2019) | Bribery of foreign officials | Arrests, prosecutions | Extraterritorial reach, complex investigations |
| BAE Systems (2010) | Deferred prosecution agreement | £30m fine + reforms | Precedent for cooperation and DPAs |
| Tesco Stores (2018) | Failure to prevent bribery (s.7) | Guilty plea, fines | Importance of anti-bribery procedures |
| Serco Geografix (2021) | Bribery in public contracts | Guilty plea, fines | Public sector bribery consequences |
| XYZ Ltd (Hypothetical) | Failure to prevent bribery | Liability under s.7 | Need for adequate procedures to avoid liability |
V. Key Points on Enforcement Practice
Serious Fraud Office (SFO) leads investigations, often in collaboration with foreign agencies.
Companies face large fines and reputational damage.
Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) are often used to resolve cases without trial.
The “adequate procedures” defense under s.7 is crucial for businesses.
Enforcement targets not just individuals but corporate entities.
RELATED Blog
0 comments