Neill Blundell provides an update of recent bribery activity around the world and discusses whether it is a real issue for business or merely an overstated problem.

1. SHINE
Bribery Risk: A growing problem for business
or a problem overstated?
18 February 2016
Neill Blundell, Partner, Eversheds LLP
Head of Fraud & Investigations

2. Neill Blundell
Partner
Neill is a highly experienced fraud and regulatory lawyer who
is able to advise clients on the interface between business and
regulatory practice and the criminal law. He has particular
expertise in advising and representing individuals, corporate
clients, professional firms and financial organisations in areas
such as market abuse and insider dealing, corruption, money
laundering, cartels and price fixing, extradition, bribery and
criminal/regulatory compliance.
He has advised on high profile investigations and proceedings
brought by the Financial Services Authority ("FSA"), Serious
Fraud Office, Revenue & Customs Prosecution Office, the
Crown Prosecution Service, Department for Business
Enterprise & Regulatory Reform and the Office of Fair
Trading. He has advised individuals who have become the
subject of a disciplinary investigation in their professional
capacity.
Neill has been instructed on some of the largest UK fraud
investigations. These include the SFO investigation into
benchmark rigging, investigation into financial irregularities at
a large supermarket chain and as well as various corruption
investigations for major corporates. As well as being involved
in a whole host of complex investigations by other bodies such
as the CPS, HMRC, FCA and the CMA.
Neill also offers compliance advice and the development of
bespoke compliance programmes in areas such as bribery and
corruption and money laundering.
In particular, he has advised clients on the US Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act and its implications for their business,
particularly where they perform public contracts in "red flag"
countries like Nigeria and China. He is also advising on the
impact of the UK Bribery Act and is helping clients devise
suitable anti-corruption programmes. He has also provided
extensive training on the subject world-wide. He also sits on
the CBI Anti-Bribery Working Committee.
Neill regularly lectures on fraud related issues and has
published many articles in various publications including the
Financial Times and Fraud Intelligence. He is author of the
chapter on "Overseas Assets", in the Sentencing &
Confiscation Section of "Fraud: Law, Practice &
procedure". He is also a contributor to Mitchell Taylor &
Talbots "Confiscation & the Proceeds of Crime". He is on the
legal panel for the BBC News, Channel 4 News, BBC Radio 4,
Sky News, CNN and Newsnight where he has appeared and
been asked to comment on various issues including the
investigation into MP's expenses. Neill is also a Solicitor
Advocate in the criminal courts where he represents both
individuals and companies facing criminal charges.
Neill Blundell is recommended in both Legal 500 2015 and
Chambers 2015 Guide, quoting that Neill is “very deliberate,
careful and linear in his approach to defending a case” and
"his attention to detail is first-class, he has an amazing ability
to recall and has a lovely humility in the way he talks and
deals with people.”

3. − The UK: Bribery Act and Serious Fraud Office
− The US: threat and enforcement
− Worldwide considerations
− Difficult issues
− Q&A
Introduction
What we will cover
Eversheds LLP |

4. 1. A significant increase in enforcement action world-wide since 2012
and greater international cooperation
2. A need to be more vigilant in the monitoring of acts by employees
or brokers
3. An increase in focus to target individuals who participate or ignore
such acts. US Department of Justice announced focus on
prosecution of executives
Three things you need to know in 2016
Eversheds LLP |

5. The UK

6. Introduced to:
− Consolidate patchwork of common law and statutory offences
− Address the requirements of the 1997 OECD Anti-Bribery
Convention
− Enhance UK law on bribery including bribery in foreign jurisdictions
− Create the following four primary offences:
Offences by individuals:
1. Active bribery (the offering, promising or giving of a bribe)
2. Passive bribery (receiving or accepting a bribe)
3. Bribing a foreign public official
Corporate offence:
4. Failing to prevent a bribe being paid (subject to the defence
of adequate procedures)
Purpose and philosophy – a reminder
Bribery Act 2010
Eversheds LLP |

7. Who does the UKBA apply to?
− Individuals if closely connected to the UK or British citizens
− Corporations which are incorporated in the UK or which carry on
business in the UK
− Any sector and any business (public, private or charitable)
Where does it apply?
− Bribery taking place anywhere in the world
Changing attitudes and behavior
Bribery Act 2010
Eversheds LLP |

8. Enforcement and Prosecution
− Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”)
• Often investigates cases which involve nationally, internationally
and strategically important companies
• Rolls-Royce, GlaxoSmithKline, Tesco, Barclays Bank, G4S and
Serco
• More SFO prosecutions likely by re-introduction of blockbuster
funding (whereby SFO secures extra funds if its total costs on a
case exceed 10% of its annual budget)
• Deferred Prosecution Agreements
− Director of Public Prosecutions to remain in post for another 2
years
− NCA now has remit for investigating overseas corruption. Former
Overseas Corruption Unit at City of London Police now housed in the
NCA
Changing attitudes and behavior
Bribery Act 2010
Eversheds LLP |

9. Where a person offers, promises or gives a financial or other
advantage to another person, and intends the advantage:
(i) to induce a person to perform improperly a relevant function or
activity, or
(ii) to reward a person for the improper performance of such a
function or activity
OR
Where a person offers, promises or gives a financial or other
advantage to another person, and knows or believes that the
acceptance of the advantage would itself constitute the improper
performance of a relevant function or activity
A reminder - what is a “bribe”?
Bribery Act 2010
Eversheds LLP |

10. Any function of a public nature
− Any activity connected with a business/trade or profession
− Any activity performed in the course of a person’s employment
− Any activity performed by or on behalf of a body of persons
(whether corporate or unincorporated)
AND
− The person performing the function or activity is expected to
perform it in good faith, impartially or is in a position of trust
Note: Can be a relevant function or activity even if it has no
connection with the UK or is performed in a country or territory
outside the UK.
What is a “relevant function or activity”?
Bribery Act 2010
Eversheds LLP |

11. − If the relevant function or activity is performed in breach of an
expectation that the person will act in good faith, impartially or in
accordance with a position of trust
What constitutes a “financial or other advantage”?
− Cash
− Transfers
− Entertainment and Gifts
− Travel and holidays
− Charitable donations
− Political contributions
− Paying school fees
− Goods and services
− Hiring or employing
What is “improper performance”?
Bribery Act 2010
Eversheds LLP |

12. Personal liability
All employees:
− Three individual offences of giving or receiving a bribe or bribing a foreign official
− Max penalties of 10 years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine
− Termination of employment
Senior officers (directors, company secretaries, managers etc.)
− If a company is guilty of bribery, senior officers may be jointly liable if they consented
or collaborated in the bribery
− If bribery takes place overseas, senior officers can still be liable if they have a “close
connection” to the UK (i.e. British citizen or resident in the UK)
− Disqualification as a director for up to 15 years
Why does it matter?
Bribery Act 2010
Eversheds LLP |

13. What must individuals in an organization be told?
− Not to bribe
− Not to be bribed
− Report requests for bribes and concerns
− Think through transactions and if in doubt, speak to someone!
− Make sure due diligence is conducted on business partners and
recorded
− Keep up to date with internal policies and training
− Co-operate in any investigations
Personal liability
Bribery Act 2010
Eversheds LLP |

14. − A commercial organisation is guilty of an offence if a person
associated with the organisation bribes another person intending
to
• obtain or retain business for that organisation, or
• obtain or retain an advantage in the conduct of business for that
organisation
− It does not matter whether the act or omission takes place in the
UK or elsewhere
− Knowledge of the bribe is irrelevant (strict liability)
− Organisation can be liable even if it does nothing improper
Penalties
− Unlimited fine
− Being disbarred from public procurement in the UK if the
organisation or its directors commit an individual offence under
UKBA
Corporate liability
Bribery Act 2010
Eversheds LLP |

15. − A person is associated with an organisation if he
performs services for or on behalf of the organization
− The capacity in which he performs services for the
organisation is predominantly irrelevant
− Examples include employees, agents, subsidiaries and
some joint venture companies – depends on all the
relevant circumstances and not merely the nature of the
relationship
− There is a presumption that employees perform services
on behalf of the organisation unless the contrary can be
shown
What is an “associated person”?
Bribery Act 2010
Eversheds LLP |

16. − The only defence available is that the organisation had
adequate procedures in place to prevent the bribery
from occurring
− The burden of proof is on the organisation to prove it had
adequate procedures in place
“The objective of the Act is not to bring the full force of the
criminal law to bear upon well run commercial organisations
that experience an isolated incident of bribery on their
behalf” (MoJ Guidance)
Bribery Act 2010
The defence
Eversheds LLP |

17. What are “adequate procedures”?
− UK MoJ has formulated official procedures and principles on what
adequate procedures are
− Generally, it is up to the organisation to decide what is appropriate
− The key test is whether the procedures are proportionate to the
risks involved
The key six principles
1. Proportionate procedures (proportionate to nature, scale and
complexity of the organisation)
2. Top level commitment (from the CEO to the post room)
3. Risk assessments (periodic, informed and documented)
4. Due diligence on third parties (on business relationships especially
if new)
5. Communication (training and policies)
6. Monitoring and review (identify issues as they arise and report on
such issues)
Corporate liability
Bribery Act 2010
Eversheds LLP |

18. − Available to prosecutors in the UK since 24 February 2014
− A written agreement between the prosecutor and the defendant
company
− Prosecution deferred and eventually dismissed, if the company
complies with set conditions; these are likely to include:
• Financial penalty
• Reparation to victims
• Repayment of profits from unlawful conduct;
• Appointment of an independent monitor (in more serious cases)
• Measures to prevent future offending.
− Used in the US for many years but UK DPA is different to its US
counterpart
Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs)
Bribery Act 2010
Eversheds LLP |

19. − Sovereign note placement in 2013-2013 by Stanbic Bank
Tanzania Ltd and Standard Bank Plc to raise $600m for
Tanzanian government
− Initially quoted a fee of 1.4% of gross proceeds; matters
did not progress until fee raised to 2.4%
− Evidence showed the additional 1% ($6m) paid to a “local
partner”, EGMA
• Chairman was head of Tanzanian Tax Authority; MD was ex-CEO
of Capital Markets and Securities Authority
− Purpose of the $6m was to induce government officials to
favour Stanbic in appointing it to conduct the private
placement
The first DPA: Standard Bank
Bribery Act 2010
Eversheds LLP |

20. − Offence of “failure to prevent bribery” (s.7) was made out
− Insufficient evidence to show “knowing participation”
− Accusation limited to having inadequate systems to prevent associated persons from committing an
offence of bribery
− Prosecution deferred for three years under the following conditions:
1. Payment of $7m + to government of Tanzania;
2. payment of $25.2m in disgorged profits to HM Treasury;
3. payment of SFO’s costs of £330,000;
4. co-operation with ongoing and future investigations; and
5. review and upgrade its anti-bribery and corruption policies.
The first DPA: Standard Bank
Bribery Act 2010
Eversheds LLP |

21. − A defining moment in corporate criminal law and provides
a cost effective manner of resolving criminality.
− Two key lessons:
• Critical to launch an internal investigation early and consider self-
reporting early; and
• Ensure that policies are truly adequate, practical and appropriate
to the business and actively promoted to all staff
− “It is a high bar, for a DPA to be suitable” (Ben Morgan,
SFO)
− The SFO have confirmed that DPAs will not be used on
every corporate case that they take on and had indicated
three by Xmas 2015 – where are they?
The first DPA: Standard Bank
Bribery Act 2010
Eversheds LLP |

22. − Sweett Group, AIM-listed property surveyor
• Self-reported bribery following an internal investigation, triggered by
allegations in the Wall Street Journal
• It appears that a former employee offered the design work on a
$100m hospital construction contract in Morocco to a NY-based
architecture firm if it agreed to pay a bribe to a UAE official who had
control of the project
• This was in addition to evidence of deception seen in property deals
between 2012-2013
• SFO investigation of two suspicious contracts
• SG is pleading guilty to s.7 offence regarding conduct in the Middle
East and was due in court on 12 February 2016 – what has
happened?
The first prosecution under s.7 outside a DPA
Bribery Act 2010
Eversheds LLP |

23. The SFO
Enforcement
− Currently around 22 ongoing investigations by the SFO against companies (under Bribery
Act / pre-Bribery Act legislation)
− Co-operation with other regulators like the CMA and FCA
− International co-operation with bodies like the US DOJ and SEC etc.
− Director of SFO David Green QC: strict direction is evident and to remain in position for
at least two more years
− Blockbuster funding:
• granted re Libor investigation
• more recently SFO requested top-up of £21.1m to ensure funding through to the end
of the financial year
• Obtaining payment of costs in DPA process
• What will the future hold for the SFO? Will it be consumed by the NCA
Eversheds LLP |

24. (under pre-existing UKBA laws)
UK enforcement: the companies
Company Industry Date Penalty
Smith & Ouzman Secure Publishing Jan 2016 Criminal conviction - £1.3 million fine and
£880,000 forfeiture
Abbott Group Oil and Gas Nov 2012 £5.6 million (civil settlement). First company
to have met strict criteria of self reporting
initiative.
Oxford University Press Publishing July 2012 £1.9 million (civil recovery order). Debarment
from World Bank funded tenders for three
years.
Mabey & Johnson Ltd Engineering January 2012 £130,000 (shareholder recovery)
Macmillan Publishers Ltd Publishing July 2011 £11 million (civil recovery order). Debarment
from World Bank funded tenders for three
years. Compliance monitor.
De Puy International Limited Healthcare April 2011 £4.8 million (civil recovery order)
MW Kellogg Limited Engineering February 2011 £7 million (confiscation of funds received from
unlawful conduct)
BAE Systems Plc Defence/Aerospace December 2010 £500,000 (part of £30m global agreement)
Innospec Ltd Energy March 2010 £8 million (part of US$40m global settlement).
3 year US/UK compliance monitor
AMEC plc Engineering October 2009 £5 million (civil recovery order)
Mabey & Johnson Ltd Engineering September 2009 £6.6 million. Compliance monitor
Eversheds LLP |

25. (under pre-existing UKBA laws and UKBA)
UK enforcement: the companies
Company Individual Date Offence/Penalty
Aluminium
Bahrain BSC
(Alba)
Bruce Hall, former CEO July 2014 Sentenced to 16 months for conspiracy to corrupt
Sustainable
AgroEnergy
plc
Gary West, James Whale, Stuart
Stone, Fung Wong
August
2013
Charged with conspiracy to commit fraud by false
representation and conspiracy to furnish false
information. West, Stone and Wong were also charged
with offences of making and accepting a financial
advantage contrary to s1(1) and 2(1) of the UKBA
Smith &
Ouzman
Limited
Chris Smith, Nick Smith, Tim
Forrester, Abdirahman Omar
October
2013
Charged with offences of corruptly agreeing to make
payments totalling nearly half a million pounds,
contrary to section 1 Prevention of Corruption Act 1906
Innospec Ltd Paul Jennings, former CEO July 2012 Sentenced to two years in prison following pleading
guilty to three charges of conspiracy to commit
corruption
Innospec Ltd Mr Miltos Papachristos, Regional
Sales Director for Asia-Pacific
Region & Mr Dennis Kerrison,
former CEO
June 2012 18 months and four years in prison respectively after
being convicted of conspiracy to commit corruption
Eversheds LLP |

26. (under pre-existing UKBA laws and UKBA)
UK enforcement: the companies
Company Individual Date Offence/Penalty
Innospec Ltd Dr David Turner, former Sales
and Marketing director
January
2012
16 month suspended sentence with 300 hours unpaid
work following pleading guilty to three charges of
conspiracy to commit corruption.
Mabey &
Johnson Ltd
Richard Charles Edward Forsyth,
former MD
February
2011
21 months imprisonment, disqualified from acting as a
company director for five years and ordered to pay
prosecution costs of £75,000.
Mabey &
Johnson Ltd
David Mabey and Richard Gledhill February
2011
Mabey: Eight months imprisonment, disqualified from
acting as a company director for two years and ordered
to pay prosecution costs of £125,000.
Gledhill: eight months imprisonment, suspended for
two years.
Eversheds LLP |

27. The USA
The leader in fighting international bribery, or more
interested in receiving huge settlement fees from
corporate?

28. The US threat – why?
− Long arm reach of the US FCPA even for non US
companies
− Working closely with foreign counterparts including SFO -
a proactive approach
− More multi jurisdictional cases (Siemens)
− Reorganisation of the SEC enforcement division with a
specialised FCPA unit
− Increased focus on individual liability – often groups of
individuals from the same company and the same
industry
− Dodd-Frank Act
Eversheds LLP |

29. − Anti-bribery provisions & Accounting provisions
− Enforced by the SEC and DOJ
− Impacts two categories of persons:
(1) Those with formal ties to the US
• Issuers – Those who own securities registered in the US or
must file periodic reports with the SEC.
• Domestic concerns – Broad, any citizen, national or resident
of the US.
(2) Those who take action in furtherance of a violation while in
the US
• May be taken by an agent of the foreign person or entity.
• May be directed at either US or non-US government officials.
• Can implicate co-conspirators, even if the co-conspirators did
not take any actions in the US
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (1977)
The USA
Eversheds LLP |

30. − A payment, offer, authorization or promise to pay money or
anything of value (see Payment to a Foreign Official).
− Involvement of a foreign government official
− A corrupt motive
− Having the purpose to:
• influence any act or decision of the person receiving the promise
or payment;
• induce that person to do or omit any action in violation of his
lawful duty;
• secure an improper advantage; or
• induce that person to use his influence to affect an official act or
decision
What the FCPA prohibits
The USA
Eversheds LLP |

31. − Long arm reach of the FCPA even for non US companies.
− Working closely with foreign counterparts - a proactive
approach
− More multi jurisdictional cases to become the norm (think FIFA,
Siemens, Rolls Royce, GSK)
− Reorganisation of the US SEC enforcement division with a
specialised FCPA unit
− Increased focus on individual liability – often groups of
individuals from the same company and the same industry
− Dodd-Frank Act and its impact on whistle-blowers
The US extra-territorial effect
Eversheds LLP |

32. − New “guidance” issued by the DOJ in September 2015
− Gives clear directives to federal prosecutors in pursuit of
individuals, and provides powerful new weapons
− Steps that should be taken in any corporate investigation:
1. Provide all facts on individuals
2. focus on individuals from the outset
3. criminal and civil attorney communication
4. absent “extraordinary circumstances”
5. resolution of both corporate and individuals
6. focus on factors other than individual’s ability to pay
DoJ – “Individual Accountability For Corporate Wrongdoing”
Prosecuting individuals
Eversheds LLP |

33. US enforcement: companies
Eversheds LLP |

34. − Co-ordination between US and foreign counterparts has increased dramatically
− FCPA investigations where local law enforcement have also investigated include:
Globalisation of US enforcement
Eversheds LLP |

35. The US threat – recent examples
− Bristol-Myers Squibb: charged with violating the FCPA
when employees of China-based joint venture allegedly
made improper payments to obtain sales; agreement to
pay more than $14 million to settle charges
− Hitachi: charged with violating the FCPA by inaccurately
recording improper payments to South Africa's ruling
political party in connection with contracts to build power
plants; agreement to pay $19 million to settle charges
− 84 companies on the SEC corporate investigations list (as
of 31 December 2015)
Eversheds LLP |

36. Worldwide

37. Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 2015
Country Rank
Score (0 = highly
corrupt, 100 = very
clean)
Denmark 1 91
Finland 2 90
Sweden 3 89
New Zealand 4 88
Netherlands/Norwa
y
5 87
Switzerland 7 86
Singapore 8 85
Canada 9 83
Germany/UK/
Luxembourg
10 81
USA 16 76
Qatar 22 71
Israel 32 61
Italy/Lesotho/
Senegal/South
Africa
61 44
India 76 38
Russia 119 29
Iran 130 27
Nigeria 136 26
North
Korea/Somalia
167 8
Eversheds LLP |

38. Country Enforcement of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention,
Progress Report 2015
Transparency International
Level of Enforcement Countries
Active Enforcement
(adequate deterrent to foreign bribery)
Germany, Switzerland, UK, US
Moderate Enforcement
(stages of progress in enforcement but inadequate
deterrence)
Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, Italy, Norway
Limited Enforcement
(stages of progress in enforcement but inadequate
deterrence)
France, Greece, Hungary, Netherlands, New
Zealand, Portugal, South Africa, Sweden
Little or No Enforcement
(no deterrent whatsoever or very little deterrence)
Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile,
Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Ireland, Israel, Luxembourg, Japan, Mexico,
Poland, Russia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain,
Turkey
Eversheds LLP |

39. Cases / Investigations concerning bribery of foreign officials
Foreign bribery enforcement – a real picture
Country Cases Investigations
United States 184 111
United Kingdom 27 22
Netherlands 11 3
Germany 6 16
France 3 6
Switzerland 3 6
Austria 1 3
China 1 2
Greece - 1
Italy 1 3
Slovakia - 2
Taiwan - 1
Romania 1 1
Eversheds LLP |

40. − Petrobras
− FIFA Scandal
• US pressure on Swiss authorities
− Libor
− GSK
• Paid $3 billion in US to settle allegations of illegal marketing (2012)
• Found guilty of bribery and fined $483 million in China (2014)
• Subsequently investigated by SEC (USA) for possible breaches of FCPA, and SFO
(UK)
• Internally investigating further allegations in Romania, Poland, UAE, Lebanon,
Jordan, Syria and Iraq.
− Alstom
• French and Swiss investigators, US and UK prosecutors
− Other trends:
• Sophisticated intelligence sharing
• More emphasis on individual liability (you cannot send a corporation to prison)
Multi-jurisdictional cases
Increasing global cooperation
Eversheds LLP |

41. Corporate hospitality and gifts
Difficult issues
− Gifts, hospitality and donations (political or charitable) are potentially bribe
− Key test is whether it is reasonable and proportionate: avoid lavish hospitality!
“Bona fide hospitality and promotional, or other business expenditure which seeks
to improve the image of a commercial organisation, better to present products and
services, or establish cordial relations, is recognised as an established and
important part of doing business and it is not the intention of the [UKBA] to
criminalise such behaviour.”
“The Government does not intend for the [UKBA] to prohibit reasonable and
proportionate hospitality and promotional or other similar business expenditure
intended for these purposes.”
“It is, however, clear that hospitality and promotional or other similar business
expenditure can be employed as bribes.”
David Green QC (Head of SFO): “We are not the Serious Champagne Office!”
Eversheds LLP |

42. − Does it have a legitimate commercial purpose?
− Is it appropriate to offer the particular hospitality to that person?
• Do not offer lavish hospitality to junior personnel
• Do not offer hospitality to persons who can determine or influence the
outcome of a pending decision affecting your business.
• Do not offer hospitality on multiple occasions to the same person over a short
period of time
− Is it in line with industry standards and norms?
− Does it pass the “sniff test”? Would you feel embarrassed if the hospitality
featured in the media?
− Does it comply with applicable local law and regulations?
− Think “GIFT”:
• Genuine: Not intended to procure improper performance
• Independent: Does not affect the receiver’s judgment
• Free: No obligation on the receiver or his/her relatives
• Transparent: Can be declared publicly
What is “bona fide”, “reasonable” and “proportionate”?
Difficult issues
Eversheds LLP |

43. − Ensure employees comply with Anti-Bribery Policy/Code of Ethics/Gifts and
Hospitality Policy …
− Follow due diligence protocol for agents
− Be live to suspicions and rumours concerning employees and third parties
Adequate procedures
Difficult issues
1. Risk
Assessments
2. Implement
Policies
3. Deliver
Training and
Guidance
4. Senior
Management
Endorsement
5. Undertake
Regular
Reviews
Eversheds LLP |

44. − Can be any person who performs services for or on behalf of the commercial
organisation
• formal contract and control not required
• legal capacity not relevant
− Activities of subsidiaries, sister companies, joint ventures, consortia, consultants,
agents, suppliers and third parties need to be monitored
− FCPA and UK enforcement history show that intermediaries and other third
parties are a major area of exposure
− Red flags:
• poor documentation
• no clear business case
• no proper due diligence
• lack of approvals
• poor transparency in use of funds
• unusual payment channels and commercial structures
• no proof of delivery of services
Difficult issues
Third parties / Associated persons
Eversheds LLP |

45. Third parties / Associated persons
Difficult issues
− Need for risk-based due diligence checks on third parties
to be engaged
− Formal contracts should require third parties to behave in
an ethical way and in compliance with anti-bribery
legislation
− Need for formal approval and monitoring processes to
check reasonableness of payments made to third parties
Eversheds LLP |

46. − More like extortion
− FCPA allows them in theory (but record keeping
requirements rarely met in practice)
− No requirement for a “corrupt” or “improper” intent
− Low level
− Requests are common in some high risk jurisdictions
Difficult issues
Facilitation Payments
Eversheds LLP |

47. − The UK: Bribery Act and Serious Fraud Office
• Legislation and enforcement mechanisms tightened
• Prosecutors not well-funded but determined to get results using new processes such
as DPAs
• NCA taking powers from SFO – uncertain what this will mean in the long run
• Difficult to predict how many cases there will be in the UK
− The US: threat and enforcement
• Still the pre-eminent enforcer of anti-bribery law
• Assertive approach to jurisdictional issues
• Now targeting individuals
− Worldwide considerations
• Many “non-traditional” jurisdictions now prosecuting foreign bribery…
• …but little consistency or clarity in how this will happen
− Difficult issues
• There are warning signs that indicate corruption within an organisation and it is
therefore very important to have systems and controls that show it up
• Corporate clients need to be willing to have detailed and sometimes uncomfortable
conversations about their values and approach to doing business
Summary
Main topics considered
Eversheds LLP |

48. − To download Eversheds guide to bribery legislation around the world, please
visit our website here
− Anti-bribery@work is our interactive online course designed for all
organisations that carry on business in the UK and are concerned about the
implications of the Bribery Act. For more information please click here
− Register here to hear about our events, publications and expert opinion
Useful Links
Eversheds LLP |

49. Questions?

50. eversheds.com
©2015 Eversheds LLP
Eversheds LLP is a limited liability partnership
Neill Blundell
Partner
Tel: 020 7919 4533
Email: neillblundell@eversheds.com
One Wood Street
London
EC2V 7WS
United Kingdom