Bribery And Foreign Public Officials
Overview
Bribery of foreign public officials involves offering, promising, or giving something of value to a foreign official to influence their official actions and gain an improper advantage. This is addressed internationally by:
The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention (1997)
The UK Bribery Act 2010 (Part 2, Offence of bribing a foreign public official)
The US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) 1977
Such laws target corruption in international business and promote transparency and ethical conduct.
Key Elements of Bribery of Foreign Public Officials
Foreign Public Official: Includes any officer or employee of a foreign government or public international organization.
Corrupt Intent: Intention to induce the official to act improperly.
Benefit: Something of value, which can be money, gifts, or other advantages.
Connection to Business: Usually linked to obtaining or retaining business.
Important Cases on Bribery and Foreign Public Officials
1. R v. Skansen Interiors Ltd [2003] EWCA Crim 1823
Facts:
Skansen Interiors was prosecuted under the UK Prevention of Corruption Act for paying bribes to foreign public officials to secure contracts in Eastern Europe.
Issue:
Whether payments made abroad to foreign officials constituted bribery under UK law.
Judgment:
Court upheld convictions, confirming that UK anti-bribery laws apply extraterritorially if the company is UK-based.
Significance:
Established UK jurisdiction over foreign bribery by UK nationals or companies.
Emphasized the extraterritorial reach of anti-corruption laws.
2. United States v. Siemens AG (2008)
Facts:
Siemens AG, a German multinational, was charged with violating the US FCPA for bribing foreign officials to win contracts globally.
Outcome:
Siemens pleaded guilty and paid over $800 million in fines.
Significance:
Landmark case demonstrating US enforcement power against foreign bribery.
Highlighted the seriousness of corporate bribery and the use of deferred prosecution agreements.
3. SFO v. BAE Systems plc (2010)
Facts:
The UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigated BAE Systems for alleged bribery related to arms deals with foreign governments.
Issue:
Whether payments made to intermediaries to influence foreign officials were criminal bribery.
Outcome:
Case was controversially dropped due to national security concerns, but it brought attention to enforcement challenges.
Significance:
Highlighted complexity of prosecuting high-profile foreign bribery cases.
Raised debates over balancing enforcement with government interests.
4. R v. Coulson, Goodwin and others (Operation Elveden) (2014)
Facts:
Several individuals, including media executives, were charged with bribery for making payments to public officials in exchange for information.
Issue:
Whether payments to public officials for confidential information constitute bribery.
Judgment:
Convictions were secured based on bribery laws applying to public officials, demonstrating broad scope.
Significance:
Extended bribery enforcement beyond government officials to include public servants.
Clarified elements of corrupt intent and benefit.
5. Serious Fraud Office v. Rolls-Royce PLC (2017)
Facts:
Rolls-Royce entered into a deferred prosecution agreement after admitting to paying bribes to foreign officials in several countries to win contracts.
Outcome:
Company agreed to pay a £497 million penalty.
Significance:
Showed increasing corporate accountability under UK Bribery Act.
Demonstrated the use of DPAs as a tool in tackling foreign bribery.
6. United States v. Odebrecht S.A. (2016)
Facts:
Brazilian construction giant Odebrecht pleaded guilty to FCPA violations for bribing officials across Latin America.
Outcome:
Odebrecht agreed to pay $2.6 billion in fines.
Significance:
Largest global foreign bribery case.
Demonstrated international cooperation in enforcement.
Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Issue | Outcome/Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| R v. Skansen Interiors Ltd | UK | Extraterritorial bribery | UK law applies to foreign bribery by UK companies |
| US v. Siemens AG | US | Large-scale corporate bribery | Heavy fines and guilty plea |
| SFO v. BAE Systems | UK | Arms deals bribery investigation | Case dropped, enforcement complexities |
| R v. Coulson and others | UK | Bribery of public officials | Convictions for payments to officials |
| SFO v. Rolls-Royce | UK | Corporate bribery abroad | DPA and large fines for bribery |
| US v. Odebrecht | US/Brazil | Multinational bribery scheme | Record fines, multinational enforcement |
Important Legal and Ethical Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Extraterritorial Jurisdiction | Countries prosecute citizens/companies bribing abroad |
| Corrupt Intent | Prosecution requires proof of intent to improperly influence |
| Benefit | Bribe involves giving value to foreign official |
| Public Official Definition | Broad, includes government employees and related entities |
| International Cooperation | Key in investigating cross-border bribery cases |
Conclusion
The fight against bribery involving foreign public officials has become a major focus of international law enforcement. Cases highlight the challenges of extraterritorial jurisdiction, gathering evidence, and balancing state interests with transparency. Both criminal prosecutions and corporate settlements demonstrate an evolving, stricter approach toward corruption globally.
RELATED Blog
0 comments