The Bribery Act 2010 – a delicate balance

  • July 18, 2011
  • By Hunters Law

Described as obscure, complex, inconsistent and insufficiently comprehensive, the current law governing bribery has developed in a fragmented and ad hoc fashion over the last 120 years – but change is afoot. On 8th April 2010, the Bribery Act 2010 (‘the Act’) received Royal Assent and is expected to come into force in May 2011. The Act establishes four offences: bribing another person, accepting a bribe, bribing a foreign official, and failing to prevent a person from committing bribery on behalf of an organisation.

The first two of these offences (bribing another person, and, accepting a bribe) are general offences that prohibit a person from offering, promising, giving or receiving a financial or other advantage to induce or bring about the improper performance of a public or business function.

The third offence (bribing a foreign official) is narrower in scope and provides that an offence will be committed if a person gives a financial or other advantage to a foreign public official with the aim of influencing them to obtain or retain business.

Of most significance is the fourth offence, namely the new corporate criminal offence contained in section 7 of the Act. Section 7 says that an offence will be committed by any commercial organisation if an associated person (for example an employee, agent, distributor, subsidiary, supplier or contractor), who performs services for and on behalf of the organisation, bribes another person with the intention of obtaining or retaining business for that commercial organisation.

This new corporate offence is extremely wide reaching and will apply to all companies, partnerships and limited liability partnerships which carry on business, or part of their business, in the UK, irrespective of whether they were incorporated or established in the UK or elsewhere. A commercial organisation found guilty of the offence of bribery under section 7 of the Act will be liable for an unlimited fine, and the individual who committed bribery can be imprisoned for up to 10 years.

In its simplest form, an employee or agent of an organisation who pays a small bribe, for example, to facilitate the smooth passage of stock to the organisation’s distributors, will not only be committing an offence themselves, but will be holding out the commercial organisation as committing a criminal offence.

Of concern to the majority of commercial enterprises is the prospect that, under the Act, corporate hospitality and gifts may now amount to a bribe. If an invitation to a corporate event or acceptance of a gift affects, or is intended to affect, the outcome of a business transaction, the hospitality or gift could amount to a bribe.

Related News

Feb 19, 2021
Stephen Morrall comments on Uber losing a landmark Supreme Court battle in the Evening Standard and the Financial Times
Feb 12, 2021
Richard Baxter and Hannah Solel examine data protection post-Brexit in Information Security Buzz
Feb 05, 2021
Budget 2021 – Still time to prepare for any changes to Business Asset Disposal Relief
Jan 13, 2021
Stephen Morrall and Hannah Solel discuss the gig economy in 2021 in Employee Benefits
Jan 11, 2021
Richard Baxter and Hannah Solel provide a legal update on data protection in 2021
Jan 06, 2021
Stephen Morrall comments on unfair dismissal in Real Business
Dec 14, 2020
Hunters strengthens its Business team with new arrival
Jun 25, 2020
Stephen Morrall and Philippa Kum discuss witnessing a deed remotely
Jun 01, 2020
Amanda Lathia examines the legal challenges of returning to work during the post-COVID-19 lockdown in WealthBriefing
May 15, 2020
Amanda Lathia comments on returning to work during the pandemic

© Hunters Law LLP 2021 | Privacy NoticeLegal & Regulatory | Cookies Policy | Complaints Procedure.

Hunters Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (number 657218)

WARNING: Website falsely claiming to be Hunters Law

4 March 2021

The website '' is operating, falsely claiming to be Hunters Law. This website has been created to mirror the genuine site, although contact details including telephone number and email addresses have been changed, and the SRA verification badge does not work.

We have also been made aware of a series of faxes circulating, purporting to come from ‘barrister’ Dominik Opalinski, advising of an unclaimed inheritance of $16.95M, which feature the same website address. Dominik is a genuine partner of the firm, but is not a barrister.

We have reported this to the SRA, and contacted the website domain hosts to request its urgent removal. If you receive correspondence of a similar nature to that described, please contact us directly by reliable and established means.