Feature
PRACTICE
The bribery conundrum Two recent successful investigations by the SFO have raised questions for risk managers on how and when to report potential bribery misdemeanours to the authorities BY RAY FLYNN
I
n late November 2015, the Crown Court in London agreed to a 3 year Deferred Prosecution Agreement (a DPA) against ICBC Standard Bank, on the recommendation of the UK Serious Fraud Office, for bribery committed by an Associated Person of the bank’s offices in Tanzania. The case involved a payment made by Standard’s sister company in Tanzania, Stanbic, to a government official, in order to secure work for both companies. The DPA was awarded for Standard’s forthrightness in alerting the SFO to the offence within days of discovering the transgression and for their agreement to fulfil conditions laid down by the court. Those included paying reduced financial penalties, enhancing their anti-bribery policies and procedures, and to opening themselves up to scrutiny, over a 5-year period, after which any possibility of prosecution would expire. In agreeing to the DPA – the first time such an arrangement has been made under the UK’s Bribery Act 2010 – Standard avoided criminal charges and possible debarment from competing in certain markets through being blacklisted. In February 2016, the Sweett Group, a firm of quantity surveyors based in the UK, became the first company to be prosecuted for the same offence and fined about £2.5m.
22
THE BRIBERY ACT2010 Guidance about procedures which relevant commercial organisations can put into place to prevent persons associated with them from bribing (section 9 of the Bribery Act 2010)
Above: Ministry of Justice guidance advises businesses to consider getting external verification that their antibribery procedures are up to the job.
Enterprise Risk
