Just over a year after the introduction of the Bribery Act 2010, a study has found that 40 per cent of executives and managers across the business spectrum agreed that present conditions would encourage companies to cut orders in complying with the Act.
And more than a quarter of the those surveyed believed that companies that bent the rules would not be pursued or prosecuted, while just over 30 per cent considered the Act little more than window-dressing.
Critics point to the fact that the Serious Fraud Office has yet to make a high profile Bribery Act prosecution, although there has been a Magistrates’ Court official jailed as a result of the commission of offences related to of a total of £20,000 to avoid registering driving offences pursuant to the Act.
And the watchdog has recently fined Oxford University Press almost £1.9m after two OUP subsidiary companies bribed government officials to win contracts to supply school textbooks in east Africa.
According to the recent survey, concern about the impact of the Act on competitiveness is most pressing, with respondents feeling that it would be difficult to conduct business in the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and still adhere to the letter of the law.
Meanwhile, the SFO is currently reviewing its Bribery Act guidance, with sections on self-reporting, facilitation payments, gifts and hospitality withdrawn from the watchdog’s website. This could signal a tough new approach, or could just be the actions of a new Director, David Green. At the moment, the SFO is saying nothing either way.
Described last year as “the toughest anti-corruption legislation in the world”, potential penalties for breaching the Act include a prison sentence of up to 10 years, significant financial payments and disqualification of directors under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.