header-logo header-logo

13 June 2012 / Hle Blog
Issue: 7518 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-detail

The bribery game

HLE blogger Simon Hetherington examines the impact of the Bribery Act on Olympic hospitality

"Corporate hospitality might have been expected to have a bumper season this year. But apparently such is not the case. A number of companies, it is reported, are refusing to allow their staff to accept tickets to the Olympics, lest they fall foul of the Bribery Act 2010. Commendable restraint, one might think, but let’s take a closer look.

On 1 July 2012 it will be a year since the provisions of the Act came into force, and you’d have thought that at some point between then and now this problem would have been anticipated. After all, we all knew that the Olympics were coming to London.

Without specific reference to the Olympics, the DPP and the Director of the Serious Fraud Office last year issued guidance as to the prosecution of offences under the Act. In it, there is the following passage: “Hospitality or promotional expenditure which is reasonable, proportionate and made in good faith is an established and important part of doing business. The Act does not seek to penalise such activity.”

That is not to say that giving or accepting hospitality is incapable of contravening the Act. There are a handful of relevant factors mentioned by the guidance, such as the following: “The more lavish the hospitality or expenditure…the greater the inference that it is intended to encourage or reward improper performance or influence an official.”

So why are companies running scared? What is different about entertaining clients and contacts at Olympic events? Well, in reality, nothing but perception. Unusually rigorous scrutiny has attended the process of getting tickets for Olympic events; perhaps a similarly close watch is going to be kept on how tickets are used. It is reasonable to suppose that the merest hint of misconduct, bribery or corruption associated with the event will not be tolerated…”

To continue reading go to: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk

 

Issue: 7518 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll