Bribery Act Landmark Cases
I. Overview of the Bribery Act 2010
The Act modernized and unified anti-bribery law in the UK.
Introduces key offences:
Active bribery: Offering or giving a bribe.
Passive bribery: Receiving or requesting a bribe.
Bribery of foreign public officials.
Failure of commercial organizations to prevent bribery (corporate liability).
Applies to UK individuals and companies worldwide.
II. Landmark Cases Under the Bribery Act 2010
1. Serious Fraud Office (SFO) vs. Tesco PLC (2014)
Facts:
Tesco was investigated for alleged bribery and corruption linked to supplier relationships.
Allegations included improper payments to secure favorable contracts.
Outcome:
The case ended with a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA), including fines and compliance commitments.
Significance:
Highlighted corporate liability and enforcement under the Bribery Act.
Demonstrated importance of internal controls to prevent bribery.
2. SFO vs. Unaoil (2019)
Facts:
Unaoil, a Monaco-based company, was implicated in facilitating bribes to win oil and gas contracts worldwide.
Several executives charged with conspiracy to corrupt.
Outcome:
Guilty pleas and convictions followed, with hefty fines and prison sentences.
Significance:
One of the largest cases applying the Bribery Act to a third-party facilitator.
Emphasized the risk of using intermediaries without proper oversight.
3. SFO vs. Rolls-Royce PLC (2017)
Facts:
Rolls-Royce admitted to paying bribes through agents to win contracts globally.
Payments spanned many years and multiple jurisdictions.
Outcome:
Entered into a DPA, paid a record fine of over £497 million.
Agreed to extensive compliance reforms.
Significance:
Landmark for corporate accountability under the Bribery Act.
Reinforced that companies must have “adequate procedures” to prevent bribery.
4. R v. Skansen Interiors Ltd (2013)
Facts:
First prosecution under the corporate offence of failure to prevent bribery.
Skansen Interiors failed to prevent a subsidiary from making corrupt payments.
Outcome:
The company pleaded guilty and was fined.
Significance:
Established corporate liability for failure to prevent bribery under Section 7 of the Act.
Warned companies about oversight failures in subsidiaries.
5. SFO vs. Alstom Network UK Ltd (2014)
Facts:
Alstom admitted to making corrupt payments via agents to secure contracts.
The case was a continuation of global investigations.
Outcome:
The company entered a DPA, paying fines and improving compliance.
Significance:
Reaffirmed the scope of the Act covering foreign public official bribery.
Showed cooperation between UK and international regulators.
6. R v. Michael Brown (2015)
Facts:
Michael Brown, an individual, was prosecuted for offering bribes to secure government contracts.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to imprisonment.
Significance:
Demonstrated individual criminal liability under the Act.
Reinforced that both individuals and corporations can be prosecuted.
III. Key Legal Principles from These Cases
Corporate liability extends to failure to prevent bribery by associated persons (employees, agents).
Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) allow companies to avoid prosecution by admitting wrongdoing and reforming.
Bribery includes indirect payments through intermediaries.
Emphasis on adequate procedures and compliance systems to prevent bribery.
Both individuals and corporations face criminal sanctions.
IV. Summary Table
| Case | Issue | Outcome | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|---|
| SFO vs. Tesco PLC (2014) | Corporate bribery allegations | Deferred Prosecution Agreement | Corporate accountability and compliance importance |
| SFO vs. Unaoil (2019) | Bribery via third-party agents | Guilty pleas, convictions | Risk of intermediaries in bribery |
| SFO vs. Rolls-Royce (2017) | Global bribery through agents | DPA and record fines | Corporate liability and “adequate procedures” |
| R v. Skansen Interiors Ltd (2013) | Failure to prevent bribery | Guilty plea, fine | Liability for failure to prevent bribery |
| SFO vs. Alstom (2014) | Bribery of foreign officials | DPA and compliance reforms | Scope covering foreign public official bribery |
| R v. Michael Brown (2015) | Individual bribery offense | Conviction and imprisonment | Individual criminal liability |
V. Key Takeaways
The Bribery Act 2010 is rigorously enforced in the UK.
Companies must implement robust anti-bribery procedures.
Use of agents or intermediaries is high risk without oversight.
Both corporations and individuals are liable.
DPAs are a key tool for managing corporate bribery prosecutions.
RELATED Blog
comments