the bribery act 2010
Post on 19-Aug-2015
13 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
THE BRIBERY ACT 2010Sanctions and Incentives
Roderick Macauley
REQUIREMENTS OF INTERNATIONAL
OBLIGATIONS
• International standards - UN, Council of Europe, OECD, EU & OAS
• Focus on UN & OECD• Bribery (OECD) and corruption (UN)• Scope and terminology
• The nature of a bribe • The nature of the ‘quid pro quo’
• Active and passive bribery; • Intermediaries• Third party beneficiaries• Definition of public official • Private sector & corporate liability
DEFINING BRIBERY • Agent/principal model
– 1906 Prevention of Corruption Act/2003 Corruption Bill
– Public sector
– Principal’s consent
• Improper performance – Bribery Act general offences - sections 3 to 5 Bribery Act
– Advantage
– induce a breach of expectation – Bribery Act UK centric test
• Influence – Active only– OECD Convention– Influence a person in the exercise of duties
Bribery Act overview
• General offences ss. 1 &2– Public & private
– Active (s.1) & passive (s.2) - autonomous
– Intermediaries & third parties
• Bribery of foreign public officials – Influence model
– Business only offence
– “Foreign public official”
– Defence - permitted or required
• Corporate liability– Innovation
– Failure to prevent
JURISDICTION, PENALTIES & CONSENT
• 21st century cases multi-jurisdictional
• Extraterritorial jurisdiction - section 12 – Nationality jurisdiction
– Section 7 corporate offence
• Individuals – 10 years’ imprisonment maximum
– Unlimited fines
• Corporate bodies, unincorporated bodies & partnerships – Fines
– Sentencing Guidelines
• Consent to prosecution– DPP & Director of the SFO
CORPORATE LIABILITY AND INCENTIVES THEORY
• Violation gains ≤ Sanctions + Incentives
• Stakeholder – the State
• Standard setting role – legal
• Criminal/administrative sanctions
• Deterrence/enforcement
• Legal incentives - mitigating
THE ADVANCE OF CORPORATE LIABILITY
• New development in many jurisdictions– Italy in 2001, Poland in 2003, Romania in 2006, Luxembourg and Spain in 2010, Czech
Republic - corporate criminal liability created on 1 January 2012.
• Emergence of new national laws– Germany - 2013 North Rhine Westphalia proposed a draft law on corporate criminal liability
– Russia - June 2014 a draft law on corporate criminal liability was put before the Russian Federation Council.
– UK – Bribery Act section 7 failure to prevent
– Ukraine – 2014 Corporate Criminal Liability Law
• Systems and controls– show there was no intent to commit an offence on part of a corporate
– provide a defence
– be a mitigating factor upon sentence
– impact on decisions to prosecute and on penalties
• Penalties and DPAs
FORMULATION OF SECTION 7 PART I
• Robust offence - strict corporate liability
• Predicate offences ss. 1 & 6 = active bribery– Jurisdictional criteria do not apply
– Commercial intent
– Individuals or legal persons
• Relevant commercial organisation– Section 7(5)
• Corporate bodies & partnerships
• Carries on a business or part of a business
– Jurisdiction • Section 12(5) combined with section 7(5)
• Outward supply side focus
FORMULATION OF SECTION 7 PART 2
• Associated person – Section 8 – performing services
– Employees presumption
– Agents & intermediaries
– Subsidiaries
• Mitigation incentive - full defence -adequate procedures – Shifts the burden
– Balance of probabilities
• Sanctions– Financial only
– Public procurement
BUSINESS COMMUNITY & CIVIL SOCIETY
• Pre-legislative engagement– Government Ministerial anti-corruption champion– Pre-legislative scrutiny
• Parliamentary process– Section 9 – Section 10
• Change of Government• Ministry of Justice Guidance
– September 2010 to July 2011
• 2011 to present day - awareness raising• Foreign governments• SMEs
MINISTRY OF JUSTICE GUIDANCE
• Definitive text
– Flexible and transferable
• Guidance not law
• Principle based – six principles
– Outcome focussed
– Familiar concepts
• Proportionality & adequacy
• Formulation
– Explanation of the relevant offences
– Principles with illustrative examples
– Factual scenarios
BA ENFORCEMENT & INCENTIVES
• Corporate self referrals – Adequate procedures
– Full disclosure and transparency
– Non-criminal outcome
– No guarantees
• Civil recovery – applies to proceeds of predicate offence where
s.7 adequate procedures defence applies
• Deferred Prosecution Agreements –February 24th
Deferred Prosecution Agreements 1
• Economic/financial crime
– Schedule 17 Crime & Courts Act
• Organisations only
– Individuals – imprisonment
• Transparency
– Judicial scrutiny – interests of justice and fair, reasonable and proportionate
– Public declaration
• Not an adversarial process
– Agreement
– No appeal
• No formal admission of guilt
– Company must accept the wrongdoing
Deferred Prosecution Agreements - 2
• Content/terms – No elements prescribed by the legislation– Likely to include: financial penalty; disgorgement of profits; order to pay
costs; compliance measures & external monitoring; cooperation on the prosecution of individuals; compensation to victims; replacement of senior management etc.
• Expiry– Company cannot be prosecuted for the facts upon which DPA was agreed
• Breaches and variation– Minor breaches – provided for in DPA– More material - court adjudication - invitation to remedy/vary– Variation - only prosecution can apply, only judge can vary
• Termination – Breach too material for variation, or – Parties are unable to agree a remedy, or – Court does not approve a proposed remedy– Monies paid under the DPA non-refundable– Prosecution can recommence proceedings
LEGISLATIVE MODEL
• International recognition
• Supports high global standards in commercial bribery– UK businesses – ethical guarantee
• Corporate failure to prevent– Leading legal incentives model
– Supply side support for demand side initiatives
top related