Corporate Anti-Bribery Training For Employees
Corporate Anti-Bribery Training for Employees
1. Concept and Purpose of Anti-Bribery Training
Corporate anti-bribery training refers to structured educational programmes designed to:
Prevent bribery, corruption, and facilitation payments,
Ensure employee awareness of legal prohibitions,
Demonstrate organisational “adequate procedures” and good faith,
Reduce criminal, civil, and reputational liability.
Training is a core pillar of an effective anti-corruption compliance programme, alongside policies, internal controls, whistle-blower mechanisms, and enforcement.
2. Legal Basis for Anti-Bribery Training in India
While Indian law does not explicitly mandate “training”, courts and regulators increasingly expect preventive compliance measures, including employee training.
Key Legal Sources:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018)
Companies Act, 2013
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 171B, 409, 420)
SEBI (LODR) Regulations
Global extraterritorial laws impacting Indian companies (UK Bribery Act, FCPA)
3. Corporate Liability and Employee Acts
(a) Vicarious Liability
Companies may be held liable where:
Bribes are paid by employees or agents,
Acts are committed in the course of employment,
The company failed to implement preventive measures.
(b) Defence of “Due Diligence”
Effective training helps establish:
Absence of intent,
Reasonable preventive steps,
Compliance culture.
4. Statutory Expectations Under Indian Law
(a) Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 9
Introduces corporate criminal liability for bribery by:
Employees,
Agents,
Associated persons.
Defence available:
Company proves it had adequate procedures to prevent bribery — training is central to this defence.
(b) Companies Act, 2013
Section 134: Directors’ responsibility statement (internal controls)
Section 177: Vigil mechanism
Section 166: Directors’ duties to act in good faith
Training employees supports directors’ discharge of statutory duties.
5. Objectives of an Effective Anti-Bribery Training Programme
Awareness of what constitutes bribery and corruption
Identification of red-flag situations
Clear understanding of prohibited conduct
Reporting mechanisms and whistle-blower protection
Consequences of violations
Reinforcement of ethical culture
6. Key Components of Anti-Bribery Training
(a) Scope of Training
Permanent employees,
Contractual staff,
Senior management and directors,
Third-party agents and intermediaries.
(b) Content Coverage
Definition of bribe, kickback, facilitation payment,
Gifts, hospitality, and travel rules,
Political and charitable contributions,
Dealings with public officials,
Third-party risks.
(c) Risk-Based Customisation
Higher intensity for sales, procurement, government-facing roles,
Sector-specific scenarios (infrastructure, pharma, defence).
(d) Frequency and Documentation
Induction training,
Annual refresher courses,
Written certifications and acknowledgements.
7. Role of Training in Investigations and Enforcement
Courts and regulators examine:
Whether employees were trained,
Whether policies were communicated,
Whether violations were willful or systemic.
Training helps distinguish:
Rogue employee conduct from
Institutional complicity.
8. Consequences of Inadequate Training
Criminal prosecution of company and officers,
Director disqualification,
Monetary penalties,
SEBI sanctions for listed companies,
Blacklisting in government contracts,
Severe reputational damage.
9. Case Laws on Corporate Anti-Bribery and Compliance
1. Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement
Supreme Court of India
Principle:
Corporations can be criminally prosecuted for offences involving mens rea.
Relevance:
Emphasises need for internal controls and training to prevent employee misconduct.
2. Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc.
Supreme Court of India
Principle:
Corporate entities are capable of possessing criminal intent through their officers.
Relevance:
Supports enforcement actions where companies fail to educate employees.
3. Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI
Supreme Court of India
Principle:
Senior management liability arises where there is active role or negligent oversight.
Relevance:
Highlights importance of compliance training as evidence of oversight.
4. Tesco Supermarkets Ltd. v. Nattrass
House of Lords (UK)
Principle:
Corporate liability depends on actions of “directing mind”.
Relevance:
Training helps demonstrate absence of corrupt intent at the directing level.
5. R v. Skansen Interiors Ltd.
UK Crown Court
Principle:
Paper policies without effective training are insufficient as “adequate procedures”.
Relevance:
Frequently cited in Indian compliance advisories.
6. Rolls-Royce Plc Deferred Prosecution Case
UK Serious Fraud Office
Principle:
Failure to train employees contributed to systemic bribery.
Relevance:
Illustrates regulatory expectation of robust training frameworks.
7. Siemens AG Corruption Investigations
International Enforcement Precedent
Principle:
Global enforcement actions led to overhaul of compliance training systems.
Relevance:
Indian subsidiaries increasingly benchmark against such standards.
8. State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub
Supreme Court of India
Principle:
Knowledge and intent inferred from circumstances.
Relevance:
Training helps rebut inference of institutional knowledge.
10. Best Practices for Corporate Anti-Bribery Training
Tone-from-the-top messaging,
Practical, scenario-based modules,
Periodic risk assessments,
Third-party training inclusion,
Audit-linked training reviews,
Disciplinary enforcement consistency.
11. Conclusion
Corporate anti-bribery training is no longer a soft governance measure but a legal risk-mitigation necessity. Indian courts and regulators increasingly view training as:
Evidence of due diligence,
Proof of ethical intent,
A shield against vicarious liability.
A company that fails to train exposes itself to serious criminal, civil, and reputational consequences, while a company that trains effectively strengthens its defence, governance credibility, and long-term sustainability.
RELATED Blog
comments