While you could be forgiven for thinking that (at least this month) the House of Lords has had a laser-like focus on Brexit legislation, it continues to deal with many other matters.  One of its select committees which scrutinises legislation is the Select Committee on the Bribery Act 2010 (the Act).  Last week, it announced an inquiry and call for evidence into the Act and in particular:

·       The effectiveness of the Act;

·       Whether there has been stricter prosecution of corrupt conduct, a higher conviction rate, and a reduction in such conduct;

·       The impact of the Act on SMEs; and

·       Deferred Prosecution Agreements in relation to bribery.

If you wish to provide evidence to the inquiry, you can do so using the form available at: http://www.parliament.uk/bribery-act-2010/.  The deadline for submissions is 31st July 2018.

The Act & Offences

As a reminder, the Act creates four key offences:

·       the general offence of bribing another person;

·       an offence of requesting or receiving a bribe;

·       bribery of foreign public officials;

·       the failure of commercial organisations to prevent bribery.

When it came into force on 1st July 2011, there was considerable debate and uncertainty about how the Act would be enforced and to what extent it might impact on businesses.  As commercial lawyers we noticed a clear and immediate shift amongst our clients to incorporate appropriate compliance measures both within their businesses and also in their contracts with third parties.  With unlimited fines for businesses and up to 10 years imprisonment for individuals, this law was always going to capture the attention of directors and business owners.  Some businesses, however, remain unclear on issues such as distinguishing genuine corporate hospitality from illegal bribery under the Act.

Prosecutions and DPAs

There is no definitive public data on the total number of prosecutions and convictions under the Act.  Some cases have been unreported although the first succesful prosecution is generally accepted to be that of Mr Munir Patel, ironically a court clerk, who took a bribe of £500 to influence the outcome of a motoring offence trial.  In 2011 he received a 3 year sentence for bribery as well as a 4 year sentence (reduced on appeal from 6 years) for misconduct.

Since then, the lead on prosecutions has been taken by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) which is the main prosecutor with responsibility for enforcing the Act.  The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has also brought prosecutions, although these appear to relate principally to domestic bribery with the SFO leading on cases involving foreign public officials under section 6 of the Act.

In a number of cases the SFO has dealt with criminal conduct under the Act by way of a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA).  These were introduced in 2013 and only apply to corporate entities where the public interest is best served by entering into a DPA.  In one of the most widely publicied cases, Rolls-Royce Plc paid a settlement of nearly £500 million plus costs associated with a DPA resulting from a breach of (amongst others) section 7 of the Act.