Bribery Act Flashcards
What’s The Bribery Act 2010
The Bribery Act 2010 is a piece of legislation that provides a framework for combating bribery and corruption.
What offences does The Bribery Act 2010 create?
The Bribery Act 2010 creates individual and corporate offences.
What offences does section 1 create?
If a person “offers, promises or gives a financial or other advantage to another person”
What are the 3 main points of section 1?
- Offer
- The intention to improperly perform
- Before or after the event
What is a case study for section 1?
R v Skansen interiors LTD.
The company was found guilty of offering bribes to win contracts.
What is the section 2 of the act?
The section 2 refers to someone who “requests, agrees to receive or accepts a financial or other advantage”.
What is bribe? Definition
A bribe is defined as a financial or other advantage that is offered to given to induce or reward improper conduct.
What’s an agent?
An agent is defined as a person who performs services for or on behalf of another.
What is a Case study relating to section 2?
R v Green and others.
Police officer was found guilty of accepting bribes from a private investigator, in return for privet information. The agent was covered by section 2.
What’s section 6?
In this section, the law extends liability for bribery outside the uk.
What’s section 7?
Makes an offence for a commercial organisation to fail to prevent bribery by persons associated with it.
What’s commercial organisation?
It’s a company or partnership that carries on business, whether for profit or not.
What’s a case study for section 7?
SFO v Standard Bank PLC.
The bank was found guilty of failing to prevent bribery by a third party who was acting on its behalf in Tanzania.
What’s section 14?
Makes an offence for a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of a commercial organisation.
What’s a case study for section 14?
R v Sweett Group PLC
The company was found guilty of failing to prevent bribery in relation to a construction project in the Middle East. The court found that the former managing director had consented to the bribery.
