Bribery Act 2010 Prosecutions
⚖️ Bribery Act 2010: Detailed Explanation
✅ Key Offences under the Act:
Section 1 – Bribing another person: Offering or giving a bribe.
Section 2 – Being bribed: Accepting or requesting a bribe.
Section 6 – Bribery of foreign public officials: Specifically criminalises bribery of overseas public officials.
Section 7 – Failure of commercial organisations to prevent bribery: A strict liability offence for companies if someone associated with them bribes another person unless the company had adequate procedures in place to prevent bribery.
🌍 Extra-Territorial Reach:
The Act applies to UK individuals and companies worldwide, and to foreign companies doing business in the UK.
🛡️ Defence:
The only defence under Section 7 is that the organisation had “adequate procedures” in place to prevent bribery.
🔍 Landmark Bribery Act 2010 Cases (UK)
1. R v. Munir Patel (2011) – First conviction under the Act
Facts:
Munir Patel was a court clerk at Redbridge Magistrates’ Court. He accepted bribes to avoid recording driving offences on the national database.
Offence:
Convicted under Section 2 (being bribed).
Outcome:
He was sentenced to three years in prison for bribery, plus six years (concurrently) for misconduct in public office.
Significance:
First conviction under the Act.
Demonstrated the Act’s application to public sector corruption.
Established early precedent for individual criminal liability.
2. Serious Fraud Office (SFO) v. Standard Bank (2015)
(Now ICBC Standard Bank)
Facts:
Standard Bank failed to prevent bribery in Tanzania involving a $6 million payment to secure a $600 million sovereign loan deal.
Offence:
Charged under Section 7 – Failure to prevent bribery.
Outcome:
The company self-reported and entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA).
Paid $25.2 million in fines and costs.
First use of a DPA under the Bribery Act.
Significance:
Landmark corporate case.
Emphasised importance of self-reporting and cooperation.
Highlighted how companies can avoid criminal conviction via DPA with the SFO.
3. SFO v. Rolls-Royce (2017)
Facts:
Rolls-Royce engaged in widespread bribery across multiple countries (e.g., Indonesia, India, Nigeria, Russia) to win contracts between 1989 and 2013.
Offence:
Although charged under the Bribery Act 2010, some of the conduct predated the Act, so older laws were also used.
Outcome:
Entered into a DPA with the SFO.
Paid £497 million in fines in the UK, plus additional penalties in the U.S. and Brazil (total over £670 million globally).
Significance:
One of the largest corporate bribery cases in UK history.
Demonstrated how systemic bribery within a multinational could be addressed using the Bribery Act and earlier legislation.
Reinforced the global cooperation in tackling bribery.
4. SFO v. Airbus SE (2020)
Facts:
Airbus was investigated over allegations of bribery in commercial aircraft deals across multiple jurisdictions including Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and China.
Offence:
Charged under Section 7, among other international bribery laws.
Outcome:
Airbus entered into a DPA with the SFO.
Paid €991 million to the UK as part of a global settlement of over €3.6 billion, including payments to France and the U.S.
Significance:
The biggest ever Bribery Act resolution to date.
Showcased the Act's international reach and the importance of compliance programs.
Emphasised cross-border cooperation in enforcement.
5. SFO v. Tesco (2017) – Corporate fraud related, not a Bribery Act prosecution
This case is often cited for comparison but did not involve the Bribery Act 2010 directly. Tesco’s DPA was based on false accounting and is frequently discussed alongside bribery cases for context in corporate criminal liability.
6. R v. Skansen Interiors Ltd (2018) – First contested trial under Section 7
Facts:
A small refurbishment company, Skansen Interiors Ltd, was accused of failing to prevent bribes paid to win refurbishment contracts worth nearly £6 million.
Offence:
Charged under Section 7 – failure to prevent bribery.
Outcome:
The company was found guilty, despite being dormant and having no assets at trial.
No fine imposed due to company’s financial state.
Significance:
First contested Section 7 trial.
Demonstrated that even small companies can be prosecuted.
Highlighted that even informal businesses need anti-bribery policies.
7. Guralp Systems Ltd (2019)
Facts:
Senior staff at Guralp Systems were involved in bribing officials at the Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources to secure contracts.
Offence:
Company charged under Section 7; individuals faced charges under Sections 1 and 6.
Outcome:
The company entered into a DPA and paid a £2 million penalty.
Individual executives were acquitted at trial, but corporate liability remained.
Significance:
Showed that corporate liability can exist even without individual convictions.
Reinforced the strict liability nature of Section 7.
📊 Summary Table
Case Name | Offence(s) | Key Outcome | Significance |
---|---|---|---|
R v. Munir Patel (2011) | Section 2 | 3-year sentence | First conviction under Bribery Act |
SFO v. Standard Bank (2015) | Section 7 | DPA; $25M penalty | First corporate DPA under the Act |
SFO v. Rolls-Royce (2017) | Mixed (incl. pre-2010) | DPA; £497M UK fine | Landmark multinational bribery case |
SFO v. Airbus (2020) | Section 7 | DPA; €991M UK fine | Largest global bribery settlement |
R v. Skansen Interiors (2018) | Section 7 | Guilty verdict | First contested trial under Section 7 |
Guralp Systems Ltd (2019) | Section 7 | DPA; £2M fine | Corporate liability without individual convictions |
🔑 Key Takeaways
Bribery Act 2010 prosecutions focus heavily on corporate failure to prevent bribery (Section 7).
The Act has enabled prosecutors to reach both individuals and multinational corporations.
Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) have become a central tool for corporate enforcement.
Courts expect companies to implement adequate anti-bribery procedures, even if small.
The Act has a global impact, affecting deals and conduct beyond the UK, where UK entities or markets are involved.
0 comments