CRIMINAL ISSUES OF GRAND CORRUPTION
| Pages | 119-130 |
| Published date | 01 April 2000 |
| Date | 01 April 2000 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb027269 |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
Journal of Money Laundering Control — Vol. 4 No. 2
Chapter Two
CRIMINAL ISSUES OF GRAND CORRUPTION
9 Introduction
9.1 We conclude in Chapter One that an English
criminal court is unlikely to have jurisdiction to try
foreign public officials for grand corruption as their
wrongful conduct would have taken place overseas.
9.2 Clearly, wrongful conduct connected with
grand corruption that takes place within England
and Wales would be subject to the English court's
jurisdiction. Criminal liability will be an issue where:
(a) those within the jurisdiction offer or pay bribes
to foreign public officials (or conspire or incite
others to do so);
(b) banks and other intermediaries in England and
Wales 'handle' the proceeds of corruption. If
they do so with knowledge of wrongdoing,
even wrongdoing committed abroad, the hand-
ler could commit criminal offences.
9.3 In this chapter we consider the possible criminal
liability in these two situations.
10 Bribery of foreign public officials
10.1 The first issue is whether bribery of foreign
public officials is an offence under the UK's preven-
tion of corruption legislation. As we explain in
Chapter One, there is no specific offence of bribing
a foreign public official. Section 1(1) of the Preven-
tion of Corruption Act 1906 provides that an offence
is committed where any person 'gives or agrees to
give or offers any gift or consideration to an agent'.
It will be seen that the section proscribes three
types of activity, namely where a person (a) gives
(b) agrees to give (c) offers any gift or consideration
to an agent.
10.2 The Act defines agent in section 1(2) as
follows:
'the expression "agent" includes any person
employed by or acting for another.'
Section 1(3) states a person performing duties on
behalf of the Crown is an agent within the meaning
of the Act. If Parliament had intended the Act to
apply to foreign officials, it seems likely that it
would have provided, in section 1(3), that persons
performing duties on behalf of foreign governments
are agents. The Hansard reports on the debates on the
bill contain nothing to suggest Parliament believed
the Bill would tackle the bribery of foreign public
officials.
10.3 Section 4(3) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act 1916 provides that a person 'serving under any
such public body [such body refers to the previous
subsection which mentions 'local and public authori-
ties of all descriptions'] is an agent within the mean-
ing of the' 1906 Act. It is arguable that this includes
persons serving under local and public authorities in
foreign countries; the Law Commission dismissed
this and stated that section 4(3) of the 1916 Act,
'appears to have been intended only to include
certain British bodies which fell outside the original
definition'.40 They were of the view that:
'Where the official were employed by it or acting
for it [namely a public body existing outside the
UK],
he or she would be an agent within the
original definition of section 1(2) of the 1906
Act.'41
10.4 There are no reported decisions on this point.
As far as we are aware there have been no convictions
for bribery of foreign public officials in the 93 years
that the Act has been on the statute books. There
must be some doubt over whether a court would
take the same approach as the Law Commission to
whether a foreign public official is an agent.
10.5 An offence under section 1(1) of the 1906 Act
will only be committed if any 'gift or consideration'
was paid to the foreign official 'corruptly ... as an
inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to
do . . . any act in relation to his principal's affairs or
business, or for showing or forbearing to show
favour or disfavour to any person in relation to the
principal's affairs or business'. The Act docs not
define what is meant by 'corruptly'. It has been con-
sidered in a number of
cases,
but a clear and consistent
Journal of Money Laundering Control
Vol.
4,
No.
2,
2000,
pp.
119-130
Henry Stewart Publications
ISSN 1358-5201
Page 119
To continue reading
Request your trial