Bribery Act 2010: implications for regulated firms
| Pages | 264-277 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/13581981211237963 |
| Date | 20 July 2012 |
| Published date | 20 July 2012 |
| Author | Peter Yeoh |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
Bribery Act 2010: implications
for regulated firms
Peter Yeoh
School of Law, Social Sciences and Communications,
University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The UK responded with Bribery Act 2010 (BA 2010) after various international criticisms.
The purpose of this article is to review its implications for UK regulated firms and foreign equivalents.
Design/methodology/approach – The approach adopted is qualitative relying on primary and
secondary data analysis. The paper will analyse recent enforcement cases to guide the interpretations
of the legal impact of the statute.
Findings – The study suggests five key findings. First, contrary to criticisms, BA 2010 is not without
teeth. Second, the UK’s position is not particularly unique as the USA and other European jurisdictions
have broadly equivalent provisions. Third, BA 2010 contrary to criticisms does not use a one-size
fits all approach as allowance is provided for the use of common-sense and proportionate approach.
Fourth, significant numbers of regulated firms do not appear to implement comprehensive
anti-bribery systems. Fifth, there are some key differences with the better known US Foreign Corrrupt
Practices Act (FCPA).
Practical implications – The analysis suggests that regulated firms and others affected by BA
2010 would need to take a more serious view of its legal consequences and respond with more robust
anti-bribery procedures and systems.
Originality/value – Contrary to the earlier alluded criticisms, the terms in the statute are to a large
extent clear and accessible. The study reinforces the argument that current regulated-firms’
anti-bribery procedures are not entirely satisfactory prompting the suggestion for improvements.
Keywords Bribery,Corruption,Enforcement, Riskmanagement, Adequateprocedures, UnitedKingdom
Paper type Viewpoint
Introduction
Recent events remind the world that bribery and corruption have not gone away
despite global efforts to extinguish it. The media are kept busy by the pioneering trial
of Hosni Mubarak and his two sons over corruption as state leaders (Montagne and
Shuster, 2011); the reported allegations of police bribery (Impei, 2011) by journalists at
the news of the world; the on-going court proceedings against Berlusconi (Ames, 2010)
pertaining to allegations over attempted bribery; and the long-running probe into a
corruption allegation at BAE systems (Russell, 2010). Other media-grabbing headlines
include bribery allegations at FIFA (The Telegraph, 2011); foreign bribery charges
against various persons in several countries relating to money printing contracts in
Australia (Curran, 2011); and the death sentences of two senior state officials over
corruption charges in China (Teng, 2011). Hence, state officials, business people
and even international sports officials become entangled over bribery charges and
probes involving different kind of businesses. These and other similar events of intense
media attention provide the appropriate backdrop for the coming into force of the
long-delayed UK Bribery Act 2010 (BA 2010) in July 2011.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1358-1988.htm
JFRC
20,3
264
Journal of Financial Regulation and
Compliance
Vol. 20 No. 3, 2012
pp. 264-277
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1358-1988
DOI 10.1108/13581981211237963
To continue reading
Request your trial