The summary is as follows:
1. The U.K. Bribery Act of 2010 aims to overhaul the U.K.'s bribery laws and go beyond the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in several respects, such as prohibiting both commercial and public bribery.
2. The Bribery Act imposes strict liability on corporations for failing to prevent bribery by persons associated with the corporation, unless the corporation can prove it had adequate procedures in place to prevent such bribery.
3. Key differences between the FCPA and the Bribery Act include: the Bribery Act prohibits facilitation payments, imposes liability on both parties
The FCPA was enacted in 1977 to prohibit bribery of foreign officials and requires accurate record keeping. It applies to US companies and citizens, as well as some foreign firms. The FCPA makes it illegal to bribe foreign officials to gain business advantages. Violations can result in criminal fines up to $2M or $100k plus 5 years imprisonment for individuals, and civil fines up to $10k. The DOJ and SEC enforce the FCPA.
False personation laws have been enacted at both the state and federal levels to prevent individuals from falsely assuming another person's identity to gain benefits or cause harm. Prior to 1998, these crimes were prosecuted under false personation statutes, but the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998 made identity theft a separate federal crime with increased penalties of up to 15 years in prison. Subsequent laws like the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act of 2004 and Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act of 2008 further strengthened penalties for identity theft and provided restitution for victims.
Companies seeking to protect their intellectual property should be aware that Congress has created a new federal law designed to prevent the actual and threatened misappropriation of trade secrets. Passed by the House and the Senate in April of 2016, the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA” or the “Act”) is slated for President Obama’s signature, whose administration has previously expressed strong support for the law.
Although white collar crimes are non-violent offenses. They are criminal offenses nonetheless and can be punished just as harshly as other, more well-know crimes; a basic understanding of some of the more common white - collar crimes might prevent you from unknowingly participating in one . Learn more about white collar crimes in California in this presentation.
There are no specific Iranian laws regulating payments to commercial intermediaries for military or non-military sales to the government. There are also no legal restrictions on discounts, fees, commissions or place/currency of payment for commercial intermediaries. Agreements with definite durations will expire according to their terms without additional procedures, but early termination may require foreseeable provisions. Commercial intermediaries are not considered employees or entitled to severance pay unless the relationship is deemed an employment under Iranian law.
JOBS Act Rulemaking Comments on SEC File Number S7-11-13 Dated June 6, 2014Jason Coombs
The document is a letter from the co-founder and CEO of Public Startup Company addressing the SEC regarding regulations under Title IV of the JOBS Act. It argues that prohibiting unregistered securities offerings across state lines is unconstitutional and violates free speech and property rights. It urges the SEC to adopt a final rule for Regulation A+ that includes preemption of state securities review for offerings up to $500,000 to help startups raise capital within constitutional limits. It criticizes a letter from members of Congress opposing preemption and argues they have violated their oath of office.
This document summarizes restrictions and guidelines around providing gifts, meals, and reimbursing travel expenses for government officials in Iran according to Iranian law. It notes that there are no restrictions on the value of gifts or meals that can be given to government officials in Iran. When reimbursing travel expenses for government officials, benchmarks like the U.S. Department of State rates or Iran's Council of Ministers Decree categorizing countries into groups for reimbursement rates can provide guidance. The document was prepared by the law firm Torossian, Avanessian & Associates based in Tehran, Iran.
Florida’s New Power of Attorney Law - Ten Things You Need to KnowFBass
The document summarizes 10 key things to know about Florida's new power of attorney law, which took effect in October 2011. It overhauled the state's power of attorney statutes and imposed new requirements. Existing powers of attorney signed before October 2011 are still valid, as are valid out-of-state powers of attorney, but the new law changes how powers of attorney must be executed and witnessed going forward. It also outlines new rules for agents, such as record keeping responsibilities, and the rights of third parties to accept or deny powers of attorney.
The FCPA was enacted in 1977 to prohibit bribery of foreign officials and requires accurate record keeping. It applies to US companies and citizens, as well as some foreign firms. The FCPA makes it illegal to bribe foreign officials to gain business advantages. Violations can result in criminal fines up to $2M or $100k plus 5 years imprisonment for individuals, and civil fines up to $10k. The DOJ and SEC enforce the FCPA.
False personation laws have been enacted at both the state and federal levels to prevent individuals from falsely assuming another person's identity to gain benefits or cause harm. Prior to 1998, these crimes were prosecuted under false personation statutes, but the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998 made identity theft a separate federal crime with increased penalties of up to 15 years in prison. Subsequent laws like the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act of 2004 and Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act of 2008 further strengthened penalties for identity theft and provided restitution for victims.
Companies seeking to protect their intellectual property should be aware that Congress has created a new federal law designed to prevent the actual and threatened misappropriation of trade secrets. Passed by the House and the Senate in April of 2016, the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA” or the “Act”) is slated for President Obama’s signature, whose administration has previously expressed strong support for the law.
Although white collar crimes are non-violent offenses. They are criminal offenses nonetheless and can be punished just as harshly as other, more well-know crimes; a basic understanding of some of the more common white - collar crimes might prevent you from unknowingly participating in one . Learn more about white collar crimes in California in this presentation.
There are no specific Iranian laws regulating payments to commercial intermediaries for military or non-military sales to the government. There are also no legal restrictions on discounts, fees, commissions or place/currency of payment for commercial intermediaries. Agreements with definite durations will expire according to their terms without additional procedures, but early termination may require foreseeable provisions. Commercial intermediaries are not considered employees or entitled to severance pay unless the relationship is deemed an employment under Iranian law.
JOBS Act Rulemaking Comments on SEC File Number S7-11-13 Dated June 6, 2014Jason Coombs
The document is a letter from the co-founder and CEO of Public Startup Company addressing the SEC regarding regulations under Title IV of the JOBS Act. It argues that prohibiting unregistered securities offerings across state lines is unconstitutional and violates free speech and property rights. It urges the SEC to adopt a final rule for Regulation A+ that includes preemption of state securities review for offerings up to $500,000 to help startups raise capital within constitutional limits. It criticizes a letter from members of Congress opposing preemption and argues they have violated their oath of office.
This document summarizes restrictions and guidelines around providing gifts, meals, and reimbursing travel expenses for government officials in Iran according to Iranian law. It notes that there are no restrictions on the value of gifts or meals that can be given to government officials in Iran. When reimbursing travel expenses for government officials, benchmarks like the U.S. Department of State rates or Iran's Council of Ministers Decree categorizing countries into groups for reimbursement rates can provide guidance. The document was prepared by the law firm Torossian, Avanessian & Associates based in Tehran, Iran.
Florida’s New Power of Attorney Law - Ten Things You Need to KnowFBass
The document summarizes 10 key things to know about Florida's new power of attorney law, which took effect in October 2011. It overhauled the state's power of attorney statutes and imposed new requirements. Existing powers of attorney signed before October 2011 are still valid, as are valid out-of-state powers of attorney, but the new law changes how powers of attorney must be executed and witnessed going forward. It also outlines new rules for agents, such as record keeping responsibilities, and the rights of third parties to accept or deny powers of attorney.
Revamping the Computer Fraud and Abuse ActDavid Sweigert
This document summarizes an article that argues the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) has failed in its goal of regulating computer crime. It claims most CFAA provisions duplicate existing criminal laws, while provisions regarding unauthorized access and damages lack proper definition, leading to court confusion. The article examines which computer crimes require new laws and concludes only unauthorized access and damages were necessary additions. However, Congress failed to adequately define these terms, resulting in overbroad application and prosecution abuse. An alternative approach of delegating rulemaking to an administrative agency is proposed.
The document summarizes key aspects of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), including anti-bribery provisions that prohibit corrupt payments to foreign officials to obtain or retain business. It discusses what constitutes a payment of value and a foreign official, as well as exceptions. Enforcement of the FCPA has increased in recent years. The document also outlines best practices for FCPA compliance programs and conducting due diligence on foreign business partners.
JOBS Act Rulemaking Comments on SEC File Number S7-11-13 Dated March 26, 2014Jason Coombs
This letter from the CEO of Public Startup Company responds to a comment letter from William F. Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, regarding proposed rules for Regulation A under Title IV of the JOBS Act. The CEO argues that the JOBS Act and existing law give the SEC authority to preempt state regulation of certain securities offerings. While acknowledging Galvin's concerns, the CEO asserts the proposed rules are consistent with congressional intent and that alternative approaches could address Galvin's objections without compromising preemption. The CEO urges all parties to remain calm and focus on protecting investors' rights.
JOBS Act Rulemaking Comments on SEC File Number S7-06-13 Regarding MottJason Coombs
This letter supports keeping the proposed rules regarding general solicitation and advertising for Rule 506(b) securities offerings. The author argues that one size does fit all when it comes to these rules. They believe the rules provide clarity and legitimacy to activities like demo days and pitch events. Compliance with the SEC rules is also not difficult or expensive. However, complying with state blue sky laws can be burdensome. Overall, the proposed rules help restore sanity and legitimacy to capital raising activities.
JOBS Act Rulemaking Comments on SEC File Number S7-09-13 Dated December 15, 2013Jason Coombs
This document is a letter from Jason Coombs, CEO of Public Startup Company, Inc., to the Securities and Exchange Commission requesting that they formally adopt a "Bill of Rights for Securities Issuers Under The JOBS Act." The proposed bill of rights outlines 10 rights of securities issuers related to public offerings, describing securities, refusing investors, and remaining private. Coombs notes he is currently under SEC investigation for potential securities violations despite no wrongdoing, and requests clarification on enforcement.
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) of 1977 prohibits bribery of foreign officials and requires compliance and transparency in financial record keeping. It was enacted in response to corrupt practices by some U.S. companies. The FCPA is jointly enforced by the Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission. It applies to any U.S. person or company and also foreign companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges. Violations of the FCPA can result in severe civil and criminal penalties for both companies and individuals.
This document summarizes key aspects of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). It describes the FCPA's anti-bribery and accounting provisions, what constitutes a foreign official, exceptions for facilitating payments and promotional expenditures, due diligence requirements, and penalties for noncompliance. It also provides examples of FCPA enforcement actions and analyzes several hypothetical situations involving third parties, gifts and entertainment, and mergers and acquisitions for potential FCPA issues.
North American countries have implemented anti-corruption laws. Should other areas adopt such practices? What impact would such laws have on business in a region?
Details the provisions and implications of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) geared toward sales people.
NOTE: Undergoing rewrite so examples more timely, specifically lessons from Siemens' FCPA problems.
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Pharmaceutical Industrydominiclai
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) prohibits bribery of foreign officials and requires accurate record keeping. It is highly relevant for pharmaceutical companies because they conduct many international clinical trials and operate in countries with national healthcare systems. Enforcement of the FCPA has increased in recent years, with over $1.5 billion in fines in 2010. Companies can minimize risk by voluntarily disclosing issues, establishing rigorous compliance policies, and following OECD anti-bribery guidelines endorsed by 38 countries.
Bribery Act 2010 From Criminal Law Policy Unit (Ministery of Justice) circula...EUROsociAL II
This circular summarizes key provisions of the Bribery Act 2010, which comes into effect on July 1, 2011. It outlines four main parts of the Act: 1) General bribery offences of offering, promising, or giving a bribe, as well as requesting, agreeing to receive, or accepting a bribe. 2) A separate offence of bribing a foreign public official. 3) A new offence of a commercial organization failing to prevent bribery carried out on its behalf. 4) Details on individual and corporate liability, consent to prosecution, penalties, and a defense for intelligence/military functions. The maximum penalty for individuals is 10 years imprisonment and an unlimited fine.
This document outlines a "Declaration of NonTaxpayer Rights" that asserts the rights of "non-taxpayers" who are not subject to federal jurisdiction or the Internal Revenue Code. It claims the IRS will respect constitutional rights, require consent, maintain privacy and due process, provide representation and appeals, emphasize service over revenue collection, and waive certain penalties. It warns against voluntarily subjecting oneself to federal jurisdiction and claims the IRS cannot be trusted based on its own internal documents. The document is presented as if written by the IRS itself outlining new policies and procedures for how it will treat non-taxpayers.
ICE out of California Implementation Guide Jennifer Rojas
This document provides guidance for advocates and organizers in California on pushing ICE out of the state. It begins with an overview of the California TRUST Act, which limits local law enforcement cooperation with ICE holds. It then discusses the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP-Comm), which replaced Secure Communities, noting PEP-Comm maintains problematic practices like fingerprint data sharing. The document aims to help communities enforce the TRUST Act and advocate for stronger "No ICE Hold" policies to further separate local law enforcement from immigration enforcement.
This document summarizes some frequently asked ethics questions regarding client trust accounts. It provides concise answers to questions about determining if a financial institution is approved to hold trust accounts, how to handle payments that contain both earned and advance fees, what to do with excess funds paid by a third party, and whether fees due to another attorney under a division of fees agreement can be held in a lawyer's trust account. The summary addresses key issues lawyers often have about complying with rules regarding proper handling of client funds.
Foreign bank account reporting requirements were established in 1970 to address concerns about US persons hiding assets and evading taxes through foreign accounts. In recent years, the IRS has stepped up enforcement of these FBAR reporting requirements, including increasing penalties, expanding the definition of foreign accounts, and collaborating with foreign governments like Switzerland to obtain client names. Tax preparers must also exercise due diligence in inquiring about foreign accounts to avoid penalties for themselves.
This document provides an overview of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in 28 sections. It discusses who is covered by the FCPA, including issuers of securities, domestic concerns, subsidiaries, and foreign companies acting in the US. It outlines the FCPA's requirements regarding accurate record keeping and prohibitions on bribing foreign officials. It also reviews exceptions, penalties for violations, compliance best practices, and common pitfalls.
The Senate passed the House-amended version of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act by unanimous consent. The legislation prohibits members of Congress and federal employees from trading stocks based on non-public information and requires reporting of certain financial transactions. It will now be sent to the President to be signed into law. The act was introduced following allegations that Congressional members profited from insider trading, and creates new fiduciary duties and restrictions for federal employees.
The UK Bribery Act 2010 introduces several new bribery offenses that expand the UK's jurisdiction over bribery. It prohibits bribery of foreign officials, private individuals, and failure by companies to prevent bribery. It covers both UK and non-UK companies that do business in the UK. Penalties are severe, including up to 10 years in prison and unlimited fines. Guidance on an "adequate procedures" defense for companies is forthcoming but compliance is critical to avoid prosecution under the Act's broad reach.
The UK Bribery Act 2010 introduces several new bribery offenses that expand the UK's jurisdiction over bribery. It prohibits bribery of foreign officials, private individuals, and failure by companies to prevent bribery. It covers both UK and non-UK companies that do business in the UK. Penalties are severe, including up to 10 years in prison and unlimited fines. Companies must implement adequate procedures to prevent bribery by persons associated with them to use as a defense. UK enforcement authorities plan to aggressively enforce the new law.
This article discusses four US laws beyond the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) that can be used to prosecute foreign bribery cases: (1) the Money Laundering Control Act, which makes money laundering a separate offense and allows for heavier penalties than the FCPA; (2) the Travel Act, which prohibits using interstate commerce to support unlawful activities like bribery and enables prosecution of commercial bribery; (3) the mail and wire fraud statutes, which bring otherwise local crimes into federal jurisdiction; and (4) the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which prohibits using an enterprise to pursue patterns of criminal acts including bribery
Revamping the Computer Fraud and Abuse ActDavid Sweigert
This document summarizes an article that argues the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) has failed in its goal of regulating computer crime. It claims most CFAA provisions duplicate existing criminal laws, while provisions regarding unauthorized access and damages lack proper definition, leading to court confusion. The article examines which computer crimes require new laws and concludes only unauthorized access and damages were necessary additions. However, Congress failed to adequately define these terms, resulting in overbroad application and prosecution abuse. An alternative approach of delegating rulemaking to an administrative agency is proposed.
The document summarizes key aspects of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), including anti-bribery provisions that prohibit corrupt payments to foreign officials to obtain or retain business. It discusses what constitutes a payment of value and a foreign official, as well as exceptions. Enforcement of the FCPA has increased in recent years. The document also outlines best practices for FCPA compliance programs and conducting due diligence on foreign business partners.
JOBS Act Rulemaking Comments on SEC File Number S7-11-13 Dated March 26, 2014Jason Coombs
This letter from the CEO of Public Startup Company responds to a comment letter from William F. Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, regarding proposed rules for Regulation A under Title IV of the JOBS Act. The CEO argues that the JOBS Act and existing law give the SEC authority to preempt state regulation of certain securities offerings. While acknowledging Galvin's concerns, the CEO asserts the proposed rules are consistent with congressional intent and that alternative approaches could address Galvin's objections without compromising preemption. The CEO urges all parties to remain calm and focus on protecting investors' rights.
JOBS Act Rulemaking Comments on SEC File Number S7-06-13 Regarding MottJason Coombs
This letter supports keeping the proposed rules regarding general solicitation and advertising for Rule 506(b) securities offerings. The author argues that one size does fit all when it comes to these rules. They believe the rules provide clarity and legitimacy to activities like demo days and pitch events. Compliance with the SEC rules is also not difficult or expensive. However, complying with state blue sky laws can be burdensome. Overall, the proposed rules help restore sanity and legitimacy to capital raising activities.
JOBS Act Rulemaking Comments on SEC File Number S7-09-13 Dated December 15, 2013Jason Coombs
This document is a letter from Jason Coombs, CEO of Public Startup Company, Inc., to the Securities and Exchange Commission requesting that they formally adopt a "Bill of Rights for Securities Issuers Under The JOBS Act." The proposed bill of rights outlines 10 rights of securities issuers related to public offerings, describing securities, refusing investors, and remaining private. Coombs notes he is currently under SEC investigation for potential securities violations despite no wrongdoing, and requests clarification on enforcement.
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) of 1977 prohibits bribery of foreign officials and requires compliance and transparency in financial record keeping. It was enacted in response to corrupt practices by some U.S. companies. The FCPA is jointly enforced by the Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission. It applies to any U.S. person or company and also foreign companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges. Violations of the FCPA can result in severe civil and criminal penalties for both companies and individuals.
This document summarizes key aspects of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). It describes the FCPA's anti-bribery and accounting provisions, what constitutes a foreign official, exceptions for facilitating payments and promotional expenditures, due diligence requirements, and penalties for noncompliance. It also provides examples of FCPA enforcement actions and analyzes several hypothetical situations involving third parties, gifts and entertainment, and mergers and acquisitions for potential FCPA issues.
North American countries have implemented anti-corruption laws. Should other areas adopt such practices? What impact would such laws have on business in a region?
Details the provisions and implications of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) geared toward sales people.
NOTE: Undergoing rewrite so examples more timely, specifically lessons from Siemens' FCPA problems.
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Pharmaceutical Industrydominiclai
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) prohibits bribery of foreign officials and requires accurate record keeping. It is highly relevant for pharmaceutical companies because they conduct many international clinical trials and operate in countries with national healthcare systems. Enforcement of the FCPA has increased in recent years, with over $1.5 billion in fines in 2010. Companies can minimize risk by voluntarily disclosing issues, establishing rigorous compliance policies, and following OECD anti-bribery guidelines endorsed by 38 countries.
Bribery Act 2010 From Criminal Law Policy Unit (Ministery of Justice) circula...EUROsociAL II
This circular summarizes key provisions of the Bribery Act 2010, which comes into effect on July 1, 2011. It outlines four main parts of the Act: 1) General bribery offences of offering, promising, or giving a bribe, as well as requesting, agreeing to receive, or accepting a bribe. 2) A separate offence of bribing a foreign public official. 3) A new offence of a commercial organization failing to prevent bribery carried out on its behalf. 4) Details on individual and corporate liability, consent to prosecution, penalties, and a defense for intelligence/military functions. The maximum penalty for individuals is 10 years imprisonment and an unlimited fine.
This document outlines a "Declaration of NonTaxpayer Rights" that asserts the rights of "non-taxpayers" who are not subject to federal jurisdiction or the Internal Revenue Code. It claims the IRS will respect constitutional rights, require consent, maintain privacy and due process, provide representation and appeals, emphasize service over revenue collection, and waive certain penalties. It warns against voluntarily subjecting oneself to federal jurisdiction and claims the IRS cannot be trusted based on its own internal documents. The document is presented as if written by the IRS itself outlining new policies and procedures for how it will treat non-taxpayers.
ICE out of California Implementation Guide Jennifer Rojas
This document provides guidance for advocates and organizers in California on pushing ICE out of the state. It begins with an overview of the California TRUST Act, which limits local law enforcement cooperation with ICE holds. It then discusses the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP-Comm), which replaced Secure Communities, noting PEP-Comm maintains problematic practices like fingerprint data sharing. The document aims to help communities enforce the TRUST Act and advocate for stronger "No ICE Hold" policies to further separate local law enforcement from immigration enforcement.
This document summarizes some frequently asked ethics questions regarding client trust accounts. It provides concise answers to questions about determining if a financial institution is approved to hold trust accounts, how to handle payments that contain both earned and advance fees, what to do with excess funds paid by a third party, and whether fees due to another attorney under a division of fees agreement can be held in a lawyer's trust account. The summary addresses key issues lawyers often have about complying with rules regarding proper handling of client funds.
Foreign bank account reporting requirements were established in 1970 to address concerns about US persons hiding assets and evading taxes through foreign accounts. In recent years, the IRS has stepped up enforcement of these FBAR reporting requirements, including increasing penalties, expanding the definition of foreign accounts, and collaborating with foreign governments like Switzerland to obtain client names. Tax preparers must also exercise due diligence in inquiring about foreign accounts to avoid penalties for themselves.
This document provides an overview of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in 28 sections. It discusses who is covered by the FCPA, including issuers of securities, domestic concerns, subsidiaries, and foreign companies acting in the US. It outlines the FCPA's requirements regarding accurate record keeping and prohibitions on bribing foreign officials. It also reviews exceptions, penalties for violations, compliance best practices, and common pitfalls.
The Senate passed the House-amended version of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act by unanimous consent. The legislation prohibits members of Congress and federal employees from trading stocks based on non-public information and requires reporting of certain financial transactions. It will now be sent to the President to be signed into law. The act was introduced following allegations that Congressional members profited from insider trading, and creates new fiduciary duties and restrictions for federal employees.
The UK Bribery Act 2010 introduces several new bribery offenses that expand the UK's jurisdiction over bribery. It prohibits bribery of foreign officials, private individuals, and failure by companies to prevent bribery. It covers both UK and non-UK companies that do business in the UK. Penalties are severe, including up to 10 years in prison and unlimited fines. Guidance on an "adequate procedures" defense for companies is forthcoming but compliance is critical to avoid prosecution under the Act's broad reach.
The UK Bribery Act 2010 introduces several new bribery offenses that expand the UK's jurisdiction over bribery. It prohibits bribery of foreign officials, private individuals, and failure by companies to prevent bribery. It covers both UK and non-UK companies that do business in the UK. Penalties are severe, including up to 10 years in prison and unlimited fines. Companies must implement adequate procedures to prevent bribery by persons associated with them to use as a defense. UK enforcement authorities plan to aggressively enforce the new law.
This article discusses four US laws beyond the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) that can be used to prosecute foreign bribery cases: (1) the Money Laundering Control Act, which makes money laundering a separate offense and allows for heavier penalties than the FCPA; (2) the Travel Act, which prohibits using interstate commerce to support unlawful activities like bribery and enables prosecution of commercial bribery; (3) the mail and wire fraud statutes, which bring otherwise local crimes into federal jurisdiction; and (4) the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which prohibits using an enterprise to pursue patterns of criminal acts including bribery
The document summarizes the key aspects of the UK Bribery Act of 2010, which introduced stricter laws against bribery. It outlines the four main offences under the Act: 1) offering bribes, 2) accepting bribes, 3) bribing foreign officials, and 4) failure of companies to prevent bribery. It also discusses the penalties for violating these offences, which include imprisonment of up to 10 years and unlimited fines for individuals and companies. Finally, it argues that Bangladesh should introduce similar anti-bribery laws to penalize bribe payers and ensure companies have adequate procedures to prevent bribery.
What the new UK Bribery Act 2010 means for US companiesMatt Stone
The UK Bribery Act 2010 introduces new bribery offenses that apply to any company doing business in the UK. The Act establishes a strict liability offense of failing to prevent bribery by persons associated with a company. This means US companies with UK ties can be prosecuted under UK law for corrupt acts anywhere in the world. Compared to the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Bribery Act is broader in scope and lacks exemptions for small facilitation payments. To avoid UK criminal liability, US companies must implement adequate anti-bribery procedures for their staff and service providers worldwide.
This document compares the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and the UK Bribery Act 2010. The FCPA only prohibits bribery of foreign public officials, while the UK Bribery Act prohibits both public and private sector bribery. The UK Act also has broader territorial reach and can prosecute foreign companies or individuals. Both laws prohibit active bribery directly or indirectly through intermediaries, but the UK Act also prohibits passive bribery. Facilitation payments are permitted under the FCPA but prohibited under the UK Act. The UK Act also has a strict liability offense for companies that fail to prevent bribery by persons associated with the organization.
The Legal 500: Bribery and Corruption Comparative Guide 2018Matheson Law Firm
Claire McLoughlin and Karen Reynolds, Partners in the Commercial Litigation and Dispute Resolution Department and Co-heads of the Regulatory and Investigations Group, co-author the Ireland chapter for The Legal 500: Bribery and Corruption Comparative Guide 2018.
This presentation on the new global law enforement effort against corruption, white collar crime, and anti-trust/anticartel behavior was first presented in London in November 2008. The presenters followed up with a presentation in November of 2009 in St. Louis. Copyright HBS and AG, 2008 and 2009.
1 The FCPA and why it Matters October 04, 2010 .docxhoney725342
1
The FCPA and why it Matters
October 04, 2010
Michael Osajda
The History, the Details and the Significance of the FCPA
The year is 1977. The place is Washington, D.C. The forum is the United States Congress. The
94th Congress, which ended its term on January 3, 1977, and the 95th Congress both obtain
information revealing evidence of payments from U.S. businesses to foreign governmental
officials and political parties. The payments exceed $300 million and were made either to secure
favorable action by foreign governments, or to prompt government functionaries to discharge
their administrative or clerical duties. The companies accused of the payments represent a wide
range of industrial sectors; drugs and health care, oil and gas production and services, food
products, aerospace, airlines and air services, and chemicals.1
These embarrassing revelations were discussed by the Congress on a number of levels, most
notably their impact on international relations, their reflection on the state of U.S. business
ethics, and their effect on competition.
On the level of international relations, while détente with the Soviet Union had commenced, the
Cold War was still a fact of life. There was an active struggle for worldwide influence between
the Soviet Union and the United States. In that context, Congress stated that corporate bribery
had foreign policy implications. These scandals lent ―credence to the suspicions sown by foreign
opponents of the United States that American enterprises exert a corrupting influence on the
political processes of their nations.‖2
There were also ethical and business levels to the issue. Congress flatly stated the obvious: ―The
payment of bribes to influence the acts or decisions of foreign officials, foreign political parties
or candidates for foreign political office is unethical. It is counter to the moral expectations and
values of the American public.‖3 These sentiments resonated in Washington in 1977. While
President Jimmy Carter’s credentials as an economic leader or as the Commander-in-Chief of the
Armed Forces may have been questioned by his critics, his role as a proponent of moral and
ethical behavior was an important part of his presidency. President Gerald Ford signed the
Helsinki Accords on human rights, but Jimmy Carter elevated the principles contained in the
Accords in importance during his term.4
Finally, on the pure business level, Congress concluded that the corrupt activity that had been
presented was bad business. It skewed the economic transaction. Rather than quality, service,
salesmanship, price, or other factors being rewarded, corruption was paramount. Exposure of
such activity could also have negative consequences for the company involved. It could ―damage
a company’s image, lead to costly lawsuits, cause the cancellation of contracts, and result in the
appropriation of valuable assets overseas.‖5
2
With this ...
Chapter 1 presents a list of the top ten Foreign.docxwrite31
Chapter 1 presents a list of the top ten Foreign Corrupt Practices Act cases and instructs students to research one case and present a synopsis. It then provides background on the FCPA, which was enacted in 1977 to prohibit bribery of foreign officials. The FCPA has two main provisions: the anti-bribery provision enforced by the DOJ and accounting provisions enforced by the SEC. In 2010, 23 companies paid $1.8 billion total in settlements for FCPA violations. For example, Oracle Corporation was charged by the SEC for failing to prevent its Indian subsidiary from making unauthorized payments of $2.2 million to phony vendors, which could have been used for bribery. Oracle
The document analyzes how the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has used its authority to prohibit abusive acts or practices under the Dodd-Frank Act. It finds that the CFPB has brought 16 cases alleging abusive conduct since 2010. The CFPB most often relies on two prongs of the abusiveness definition - those prohibiting taking unreasonable advantage of a consumer's lack of understanding or inability to protect their interests. Nearly all abusive claims also allege unfair or deceptive practices. The CFPB has rarely used the prong prohibiting interfering with a consumer's understanding and never alone. Overall, the CFPB's use of abusiveness claims has not clearly distinguished what conduct is abusive but not unfair or de
This document provides background on anti-corruption efforts over the past 40 years, beginning with the passage of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in 1977. It then discusses the UK Bribery Act passed in 2010 and focuses on analyzing the "adequate procedures" defense provision in the act. The document questions whether failing to define what constitutes "adequate" undermines the validity of the defense and the imposition of liability on corporations. It will explore what standard the defense aims to create and whether allowing such a defense is advisable for a strict liability offense.
GLI - Global Legal Insights Ireland Bribery & Corruption 2017, 4th EditionMcCannFitzGerald
Megan Hooper, Heather Mahon and Imelda Higgins co-authored the Irish chapter of Global Legal Insights – Bribery & Corruption 2017; published by Global Legal Group Ltd, London.
The new british invasion may jon mar-feature_030512-415-1jonamay
The UK Bribery Act of 2010 subjects any US corporation or individual doing business in the UK to criminal penalties if found guilty of bribery. Unlike the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the UK Bribery Act applies to commercial bribery in addition to bribery of foreign officials. As a result, the UK Bribery Act poses a greater threat to US companies than the FCPA, as it can prosecute companies for a wider range of business activities and relationships anywhere in the world. Key differences between the laws include available defenses, such as the UK Bribery Act's defense of having adequate procedures to prevent bribery within an organization.
The new british invasion may jon mar-feature_030512-415-1jonamay
The article describes the proscriptions of the UK Bribery Act of 2010 and compares its provisions to the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, arguing that the UK Act potentially criminalizes a broader range of conduct including commercial bribery.
This document discusses the challenges that global companies face in understanding and complying with diverse anti-corruption and anti-money laundering laws around the world. It notes that many countries have enacted tougher anti-corruption standards based on international conventions. However, the laws vary significantly between countries in terms of what behaviors are prohibited, enforcement approaches, and liability standards. The document highlights differences between laws in the US, UK, and Brazil as an example. It emphasizes that companies must closely monitor changes in foreign laws and strengthen compliance programs given increasing international cooperation on corruption investigations.
The document summarizes the Federal False Claims Act (FCA) and the Anti-Kickback Statute and how they relate. It notes that the FCA prohibits fraudulent claims to the government and provides incentives for whistleblowers. Recent cases have involved healthcare fraud through kickbacks disguised as improper lease or financial arrangements. Strict compliance with anti-kickback safe harbors is required to avoid penalties under the FCA or civil monetary penalties. Violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute can form the basis of a claim under the FCA.
This document provides a summary of sanctions and export controls enforced by the Office of Foreign Asset Controls (OFAC) and the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) on trade with sanctioned regions. It notes that OFAC and BIS enforcement is increasing given ongoing conflicts. While a nuclear deal with Iran may relax some sanctions, US firms will still be largely barred from investing there. The document also advises being wary of suspicious client behavior that could indicate export diversions.
Chartered Secretary - The Black Money Act - is It a PanaceaSudipto Banerjee
The article analyzes India's Black Money Act, which came into effect on July 1, 2015. Some key points:
- The Act taxes undisclosed foreign assets and income of resident Indian citizens at 30% and also imposes severe criminal penalties for tax evasion.
- It allows for a one-time compliance window until December 2015 for declaring foreign assets with a penalty of paying the tax due plus a 100% penalty.
- Significantly, the Act defines willful attempt to evade tax as a "predicate offense" under India's anti-money laundering law, allowing tax authorities and the Enforcement Directorate to investigate cases jointly.
- This is aimed at enabling India to seek more cooperation from
The document outlines 4 major whistleblower programs in the United States: 1) The SEC Whistleblower Program created by Dodd-Frank which offers financial rewards for reporting securities violations. 2) The Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Program which protects employees who report accounting fraud and securities violations. 3) The CFTC Whistleblower Program established by Dodd-Frank which rewards reports of commodities and futures trading fraud with 10-30% of sanctions. 4) The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act program run by the DOJ and SEC which rewards reporting of international financial crimes like money laundering. These programs are designed to encourage whistleblowing and protect whistleblowers.
Refrigerator Industry of Pakistan 2017Shehroz Adil
Data compiled over stats of 2016 sales. Overall processes and structure discussed of Dawlance as it's the company that has the overall proper channel and distribution procedure within the country.
State Bank Of Pakistan - Statutory ComplianceShehroz Adil
The document summarizes regulations from the State Bank of Pakistan regarding anti-money laundering for banks and development financial institutions. It outlines 3 key regulations: 1) Reporting of suspicious transactions and currency transactions. 2) Maintaining records of transactions for 10 years. 3) Establishing internal controls, policies, and training programs related to anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing. Banks and DFIs must comply with Pakistan's AML Act and appoint a compliance officer to ensure adherence to these regulations.
Course : Organizational Behaviour
Company : Pakistan State Oil (PSO)
Description: Insights of the company structural wise and the articles defined according to the organization for supporting leadership.
The IMF works to foster global economic growth and stability by managing exchange rates and providing short-term financing to countries with balance of payments issues. It negotiates lending conditions and offers concessional loans to low-income countries. However, IMF policies are often criticized for prioritizing budget balance over economic growth, increasing unemployment, and compelling countries to accept conditions they would not normally. One proposed reform is for the IMF to partner more closely with other international organizations focused on issues like education, agriculture, and development.
The document summarizes key provisions of the Factories Act of 1934 in Pakistan related to health, safety, welfare and working conditions for factory workers. It defines terms, outlines requirements for inspecting staff, and details regulations around cleanliness, ventilation, lighting, drinking water, machinery safety, holidays, and maximum working hours. The act aims to protect worker health and establish standards for hygiene, safety precautions, and welfare facilities in factories employing 10 or more workers.
Anti money laundering laws Pakistan with comparison of International lawsShehroz Adil
The document discusses anti-money laundering laws and regulations. It defines money laundering and outlines the process. It estimates that $800 billion to $2 trillion may be laundered annually worldwide. Several international bodies work to combat money laundering, including the UN, FATF, IMF, and World Bank. Pakistan has passed several acts and an ordinance to comply with FATF standards and amend its anti-money laundering laws. The document also discusses specific cases of alleged money laundering and international laws and requirements regarding anti-money laundering.
" Diletto Carnation " ice-cream business proposal for Walls PresentationShehroz Adil
This document discusses Wall's plans to launch a new cow's milk ice cream brand called Diletto Carnation. It will initially offer 3 flavors - strawberry, vanilla and chocolate. As a cow's milk product with low sugar, it is positioned as a healthier option that can be consumed by diabetics. The document outlines Wall's corporate structure, strategies, marketing plan, sales plan, challenges and training programs to support the launch of this new product. It emphasizes retaining and training sales staff to effectively promote Diletto Carnation in the market and capture market share.
This document summarizes a term report on the principles of management at KASB Securities Ltd. It outlines the company's objectives of being a market leader with low commissions and affiliations with global banks. It also describes the company's planning, organizing, influencing, and controlling activities. Key aspects include strictly following goals and objectives, distributing tasks appropriately, promoting performance through bonuses and awards, and measuring employee performance for improvement. The conclusion states that KASB has been improving over four years through strong policies for employees and economic support given local conditions. Recommendations include improving training for changes and altering annual leave policies to benefit both employees and the company.
Business Proposal for Wall's "Diletto carnation"Shehroz Adil
Unilever Pakistan is introducing a new ice cream product line called "Diletto Carnation" made solely from cow's milk. It will initially offer 3 flavors: strawberry, vanilla and chocolate. The product is positioned as healthier than other ice creams due to its low sugar content from the cow's milk. It will target posh markets since the cost will be higher than competitors like Wall's. A letter authorizes a report on Unilever's sales territory and time management practices, focusing on their tools, techniques and processes.
Shell Pakistan operates an extensive supply chain to distribute oil products throughout Pakistan. It sources from local refineries as well as imports. The supply chain involves upstream extraction and refining, midstream transportation via pipelines and tankers, and downstream distribution to major consumers like industries and power plants. Shell has depots across Pakistan and uses a complex system of demand planning, inventory management, and logistics to ensure a reliable supply of products to its many customers.
The document summarizes the regulatory structure and functions of the Karachi Stock Exchange (KSE) in Pakistan. The KSE is the largest stock exchange in Pakistan and is regulated by several government entities including the Ministry of Finance, State Bank of Pakistan, and Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan. The KSE's board of directors oversees its operations. It facilitates trading through an electronic trading system and has various markets for different types of trades. It provides liquidity for investors and serves important functions for both companies and investors.
1. 1
1
A Comparison of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act and the U.K. Bribery Act
BY MICHELLE DUNCAN, PALMINA FAVA & SAMANTHA KAKATI
Introduction
The U.S. is the global leader in enforcing anti-corruption legislation, while the U.K. has compared
unfavorably in prosecuting individuals and corporations pursuant to the country’s anti-bribery rules.
The U.K. Bribery Act 2010 (the “Bribery Act”), which received Royal Assent on April 8, 2010, seeks to
change that by overhauling the U.K.’s bribery laws and going beyond the U.S. Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act of 1977 (“FCPA”) in several respects.
As highlighted below, however, the broad scope of the Bribery Act creates several areas of
uncertainty. Official guidance on these areas is expected in early 2011, prior to the Bribery Act’s
effective date in April 2011. The U.K. government expects corporations to use this period to bring their
anti-corruption policies and programs into compliance with the Bribery Act, and is seeking input from
corporations in defining the “adequate procedures” required by the Bribery Act. The period of
consultation is expected to close on November 8, 2010. Entities interested in participating in the
consultation may visit www.justice.gov.uk.
This alert highlights the key differences between the FCPA, as applied, and the Bribery Act, as written,
and summarizes issues meriting consideration by affected entities.
Jurisdiction Under the Bribery Act
The FCPA applies to all U.S. companies and citizens, foreign companies listed on any U.S. stock
exchange or required to file disclosures under the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act, individuals acting
on behalf of such companies or individuals, and entities that commit an offense in the U.S. Under the
Bribery Act, the two general offenses of offering a bribe and accepting a bribe, as well as the offense
of bribing a foreign public official, have a similar territorial scope as the FCPA. Jurisdiction is conferred
when the relevant act or omission: (1) takes place in the U.K.; or (2) takes place anywhere in the
world when committed by a person closely connected with the U.K. “Closely connected” is defined in
the Bribery Act with several examples.
October 2010
2. 2
2
As written, the Bribery Act’s corporate offense of failing to prevent bribery by persons associated with
a corporation has a wider reach. It applies to:
(a) U.K. partnerships, limited partnerships and incorporated companies wherever they do
business (irrespective of where the offense is committed); and
(b) commercial organizations that “carry on business or part of a business” in the U.K.
wherever registered or incorporated.
Non-U.K. entities may be held liable under the Bribery Act if conduct in furtherance of the offense
occurs in the U.K. Moreover, a foreign corporation that did some business in the U.K., but does not
have a U.K. office, may be criminally liable if an agent, employee or subsidiary offered or accepted a
bribe anywhere in the world, regardless of whether the misconduct involved the U.K. business or
occurred in the U.K., and even if the company had only limited contacts with the U.K. In addition, the
person who is associated with the entity and who committed the offense need not be closely
connected to the U.K. to confer jurisdiction upon the U.K.’s Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) under the
corporate offense.
The SFO has announced that it will support ethical U.K. businesses by prosecuting foreign corporations
that undercut British companies using improper tactics. Against this backdrop, it is likely that U.K.
courts will impose a low territorial jurisdiction threshold in prosecuting companies and individuals
under the Bribery Act. It remains to be seen whether a fine imposed for acts that occurred by a non-
U.K. affiliate of a non-U.K.-registered or non-U.K.-based company would affect only the portion of
U.K. business by the indicted company or whether it would have a broader reach to the non-U.K.-
generated revenue.
Recipient Bears Liability
The FCPA does not criminalize the acceptance of a bribe, unlike the Bribery Act. The Bribery Act
expressly prohibits the requesting, agreeing to receive, or accepting of a financial or other advantage.
A bribe under the Bribery Act is broadly defined as a “financial or other advantage,” which is expected
to capture more conduct than the FCPA’s definition of “anything of value.” In practice, “anything of
value” has been applied broadly by the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Securities and
Exchange Commission (“SEC”), rendering it in line with its U.K. counterpart, despite its arguably more
limited definition in the statute.
Commercial Bribery Prohibited
The FCPA only criminalizes the bribery of foreign government officials. Although the FCPA defines
“government officials” broadly to include employees of state-owned or state-controlled entities – even
if local procurement laws do not consider such entities governmental – some element of government
involvement is necessary. The Bribery Act, on the other hand, prohibits both commercial and public
bribery and imposes liability on both the payor of the bribe and the recipient, even if both are private
individuals. To be actionable, the offering, promising, or giving of a financial or other advantage must
be done with the intention of inducing the recipient to perform “improperly” a “relevant function or
activity.”
Unlike the FCPA, the definition of “foreign official” under the Bribery Act does not include candidates
for public office. Accordingly, bribery of such individuals falls within the proscriptions of the general
bribery offenses.
3. 3
3
Notably, prosecutors in the U.S. are using the Travel Act to penalize individuals who engage in
commercial bribery overseas. The Travel Act criminalizes the use of “the mail or any facility in
interstate or foreign commerce” with the intent to “facilitate the promotion, management,
establishment or carrying on of an unlawful activity.” “Unlawful activity” includes “bribery . . . in
violation of the laws of the state in which committed or of the United States.” The U.S. does not have
a federal commercial bribery statute, but almost all states do, and a majority of those statutes set a
low bar, outlawing any benefit intended to influence conduct. Any telephone call, mail, wire transfer,
or travel qualifies as interstate or foreign commerce, rendering the Travel Act expansive in its scope
and potential application similar to the Bribery Act.
Bribery of a Foreign Official
While the FCPA requires that a bribe be made with the corrupt intent to obtain or retain business or a
competitive advantage, the Bribery Act contains no “corrupt intent” element in the offense of bribing a
foreign official. The Bribery Act merely requires that the bribe be paid to obtain or retain business or
an advantage in the conduct of business. The Bribery Act’s proscriptions on intent and scope of the
offense are more narrow when a government official is involved than when a private individual is the
recipient of the “financial or other advantage.” Indeed, there is no comparable requirement in the
offense of bribing a public official that the payor intend to induce the recipient to behave improperly.
An item of value provided to a foreign government official with the intention of familiarizing that
official with a company’s products or services and of creating a favorable impression of the company is
a technical violation of the Bribery Act, as the SFO has acknowledged, but it is not likely to lead to a
prosecution because the conferred “financial or other advantage” must be intended to influence (and,
based on value, be capable of influencing) the recipient’s behavior. If the advantage is reasonable or a
bona fide business expense, it is unlikely to have the effect of influencing behavior, thereby resulting
in no liability. Nevertheless, the treatment of reasonable and customary business hospitality expenses
involving government officials is a source of concern for corporations until more specific guidance is
released by the U.K. government in early 2011, and compliance policies should ensure that personnel
and agents are aware of what constitutes reasonable business expenses.
Payments to foreign officials made through third parties can form the basis of an offense under both
the Bribery Act and the FCPA. The Bribery Act does not require knowledge on the part of the third
party to impose liability on the corporate. In the absence of any guidance on this point, it is expected
that English courts and prosecutors will be tasked with determining whether to import a knowledge
and/or conscious avoidance test. Under the FCPA, “knowledge” has been imputed where an entity was
willfully blind to misconduct or consciously avoided examining red flags. The fact that the Bribery Act
does not impose a knowledge requirement renders it likely that prosecutors will adopt a more
expansive definition as in the U.S.
Business Promotional Expenditures
The FCPA permits reasonable and bona fide business expenditures provided they directly relate to
promotional activities. Although the early drafts of the Bribery Act considered including language to
permit legitimate commercial conduct, the House of Lords rejected such exception to the rule,
concluding that prosecutors should have the discretion “to differentiate between legitimate and
illegitimate corporate hospitality” in deciding whether a prosecution “would be in the public interest.”1
Under the Bribery Act, any advantage given or promised could constitute a bribe if a reasonable
person in the U.K. would consider that action improper or an inducement to act improperly. As the
4. 4
4
U.K. Ministry of Justice acknowledged, “corporate hospitality is an accepted part of modern business
practice and the Government is not seeking to penalise expenditure on corporate hospitality for
legitimate commercial purposes.” However, abuse is likely to occur when hospitality is excessive in
value, given too often, or leaves the recipient in a position of obligation. While no further official
guidance has been offered, following consultation with the SFO, Transparency International, a non-
governmental organization which was a member of the Joint Committee that gave pre-legislative
scrutiny to the Bribery Act, has published more detailed guidelines. This guidance suggests that
corporate hospitality is likely to be acceptable if: (1) as under the FCPA, it is reasonable and bona
fide; (2) it is transparent; (3) it is proportionate; and (4) the organization has adequate procedures
and policies in place to monitor and regulate the expenses. The Transparency International guidance
may be found at: www.transparency.org.uk.
Accordingly, corporations should be conscious of whether their travel and entertainment policies
clearly distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable corporate hospitality and impose stricter
guidelines for hospitality involving government officials, as defined by the Bribery Act, to minimize
incurring liability under the corporate offense. Regardless of whether the policies are required as a
defense to the Bribery Act’s corporate offense, such policies reflect best practices in an anti-bribery
program – a key factor to be considered by courts in assessing liability for any other offense under the
Bribery Act.
Strict Corporate Liability
The Bribery Act imposes strict liability on corporates for failing to prevent bribery by a person
“associated” with the corporation who intends to obtain or retain business or an advantage in the
conduct of business for the organization. An “associated person” includes employees, agents,
representatives, and subsidiaries, i.e., those who perform services for, or on behalf of, the
organization.
The only available defense is that the corporation had “adequate procedures” in place designed to
prevent associated persons from engaging in misconduct. Satisfying this element requires showing not
just that the company adopted comprehensive written policies, but also that it undertook appropriate
steps to apply and enforce them, including training its agents. In mid-September 2010, U.K. officials
began to elicit public comments on how to define “adequate procedures.” Such comments will inform
the guidance that the U.K. government intends to publish in early 2011. It is expected that the
guidance will set out general principles for anti-bribery programs supported by case studies, but will
not contain detailed descriptions of the design and implementation of adequate procedures. Thus far,
the U.K. government has articulated six principles on which compliance programs should be based to
satisfy the “adequate procedures” defense, but what actually constitutes “adequate procedures” will
remain at the discretion of the courts.
The six principles largely mirror those of the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines for effective internal
controls and the OECD’s Good Practice Guidance on Internal Controls, Ethics and Compliance. They
are: (1) Risk Assessment, which varies based on, among other things, the size of the company, its
business sectors, the markets in which it operates, the use of third-party agents, and the volume of
government business; (2) Top-Level Responsibility, particularly at the board of directors level, for
fostering a culture of compliance, integrity, and zero-tolerance of corruption; (3) Due Diligence,
vetting, and monitoring of third parties; (4) Clear, Comprehensive, Practical, and Accessible policies
and procedures regarding anti-corruption issues; (5) Effective Implementation of the Compliance
5. 5
5
Program, including training of personnel and third parties and mechanisms for reporting concerns; and
(6) Monitoring and Review of the policies, procedures, and conduct.
The Bribery Act does not require any intent by a corporation in imposing liability. However, the person
associated with the corporate who committed the original offense must have engaged in the conduct
with the intention of obtaining or retaining business or an advantage for the company.
Liability of Senior Officers
Under the Bribery Act, senior officers are not personally liable for the corporate offense of failing to
prevent bribery. In contrast, the FCPA imposes liability on a senior officer for a corporation’s failure to
create and implement appropriate anti-corruption controls. Senior officers are also liable for FCPA
violations in their capacity as a “control person.”
A senior officer may be liable under the Bribery Act for the general offenses of commercial bribery or
for the offense of bribing a public official, if the offense was committed by the body corporate with the
“consent or connivance” of a senior officer. The inclusion of this provision in the Bribery Act likely
foreshadows an interest in prosecuting individuals for corruption-related corporate offenses similar to
the activities of prosecutors in the U.S.
A senior officer is defined by the Bribery Act as a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer
of a body corporate. Similarly, under the FCPA, an officer, director, supervisor, manager, or another
person having “control” over the conduct may be held liable if he or she acquiesced in the misconduct,
failed to prevent the misconduct despite having reason to believe it was occurring, was willfully blind
to the misconduct, or actively participated in it.
Facilitation Payments
Facilitating or expediting payments to foreign officials is permitted by the FCPA, but is prohibited by
the Bribery Act. Such payments are often made to expedite the processing of licenses, permits, or
other necessary business documents to which the body corporate is entitled and are given to low-level
employees who are not in a position to award business to the company. Nevertheless, obtaining a
license sooner than a competitor by making a facilitation payment can provide a competitive
advantage to the corporation, which is proscribed under the Bribery Act (as well as the FCPA).
Many companies’ codes of conduct expressly forbid facilitation payments or severely restrict them
because they are not uniformly permitted by international anti-bribery laws and create a risk even
under the FCPA if they do not satisfy the regulators’ limitations. Moreover, the SFO has acknowledged
that it is unlikely to take action against a company for a nominal facilitation payment because grease
payments remain a fact of doing business in many parts of the world, but the SFO does possess the
discretion to prosecute an entity if the payments exceed what a reasonable person would find
nominal.
Enforcement
Only criminal proceedings may be brought under the Bribery Act; there is no corresponding civil claim
as under the FCPA. Prosecutions under the Bribery Act may only be brought by, or with the consent
of, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Director of the SFO, or the Director of Revenues and
Customs Prosecutions. The Director of the SFO, which is likely to be the primary enforcing body, has
commented that his organization will not have the resources to prosecute every violation of the
6. 6
6
Bribery Act, particularly given the broad nature of certain provisions. Nevertheless, prosecutors are
afforded wide discretion under the Bribery Act to bring claims, and offenses have been left
purposefully broad to provide such discretion.
Penalties
An individual guilty of an offense under the Bribery Act faces imprisonment for up to ten years and an
unlimited fine. A corporation found guilty of failing to prevent bribery faces an unlimited fine.
Bribery offenses under the FCPA carry a less severe maximum sentence of five years imprisonment
and fines of up to $250,000 for individuals and fines of up to $2 million for corporations. Corporations
also face other sanctions such as debarment, disgorgement of profits, and imposition of corporate
monitors.
Books and records or internal control violations under the FCPA carry a maximum sentence of
20 years imprisonment and fines of up to $5 million for individuals and up to $25 million for
corporations. There is no comparable offense in the Bribery Act. Prosecutions for similar offenses in
the U.K. would be under company law, the Fraud Act 2006 or the Theft Act 1968.
Conclusion
Much like the FCPA, the Bribery Act’s intention is to remove corruption from business practices and to
compel corporations to adopt rigorous and robust compliance programs. Companies with business
interests in the U.K. face exposure under the Bribery Act and must establish compliance programs
consistent with the U.K. government’s guidance. Companies whose compliance programs are modelled
along the FCPA may need to revise those policies and procedures to account for the differences
between the FCPA and the Bribery Act and the broader scope of offenses covered by the latter. Board-
level commitment to adopting strict anti-bribery measures is critical and will impact the SFO’s (as well
as the DOJ’s and SEC’s) view of a corporation’s commitment to compliance. The broad territorial reach
of the Bribery Act, combined with its expansive offenses and prosecutorial discretion, render it prudent
for entities to consider whether their compliance protocols conform to the evolving international
enforcement landscape being shaped by the Bribery Act.