Placebos or Panaceas: Anglo-New Zealand Experiences of Legislative Approaches to Combatting Bribery
| Author | Christopher J. Newmann,Michael Macaulay |
| Date | 01 December 2013 |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2013.77.6.875 |
| Published date | 01 December 2013 |
| Subject Matter | Comment |
COMMENT
Placebos or Panaceas: Anglo-New Zealand
Experiences of Legislative Approaches to
Combatting Bribery
Christopher J. Newman* and Michael Macaulay**
Keywords Bribery; Corruption; Cross-comparative analysis; Payment to
foreign officials
Described as ‘the world’s toughest anti-bribery regime’,1the Bribery Act
2010 received Royal Assent in April 2010. The aim of the legislation was
to reform and consolidate anti-corruption legislation while complying
fully with various international treaty obligations,[fn] and it is recognised
that ‘by any measure, the Bribery Act 2010 is significant legislation’.3
Coming at a time where corruption within the financial sector was
perceived as being endemic, the legislation captured the prevailing
zeitgeist.4Despite the passing of the Bribery Act, however, the perception
lingers that corruption is endemic within the financial sector.5The
purpose of this Comment is to examine the operation of the Bribery Act,
with specific (though not exclusive) reference to the extra-territorial
jurisdictional provisions.6This operation will be viewed through the
prism of the New Zealand legal response to anti-corruption, embedded
within the Criminal Code by means of Part VI of the Crimes Act 1961.
The Comment will suggest that whilst the perception of endemic cor-
ruption remains, the Bribery Act 2010 will remain largely totemic unless
reinforced with political and legal activity. The lessons from the New
* BA (Hons), PG Dip Law, PhD, Reader in Public Law at the University of
Sunderland; e-mail: chris.newman@sunderland.ac.uk.
** MA (Hons), MSc, PhD, Associate Professor (Public Management), Deputy Director,
Institute for Governance and Policy Studies, School of Government, Victoria
University of Wellington; e-mail: Michael.Macaulay@vuw.ac.nz.
1 C. Wells, ‘Who’s Afraid of the Bribery Act 2010’ [2012] Jnl Bus Law 420.
2 Specifically, the OECD Convention on Combatting Bribery of Foreign Public
Officials in International Business, see OECD Working Group on Bribery in
International Business Transactions, Report on the Application of the Convention on
Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and the
1997 Recommendation on Combating Bribery in International Business Transactions, 16
October 2008, available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/23/20/41515077.pdf, accessed
14 October 2013 and the text below at n. 28. For further discussion, see Wells,
above n. 1.
3 G. Sullivan, ‘The Bribery Act 2010: Part1: An Overview’ [2011] Crim LR 87.
4 For an academic perspective, see, e.g., R. F. Duska ‘Corruption, Financial Crises, and
the Financial Planner’ (2009) 63 Journal of Financial Service Professionals 14.
5 R. Cooper, ‘Vince Cable: ‘Endemic Corruption’ in Banking’, Daily Telegraph, 1 July
2012, available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/
9367899/Vince-Cable-endemic-corruption-in-banking.html, accessed 14 October 2013.
6 The most obvious example of this are the provisions found within ss 6–7 of the
Bribery Act 2010.
482 The Journal of Criminal Law (2013) 77 JCL 482–496
doi:10.1350/jcla.2013.77.6.875
To continue reading
Request your trial