{"id":142758,"date":"2026-06-10T09:06:59","date_gmt":"2026-06-10T09:06:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/?post_type=comparative_guide&#038;p=142758"},"modified":"2026-06-10T09:34:32","modified_gmt":"2026-06-10T09:34:32","slug":"united-kingdom-bribery-corruption","status":"publish","type":"comparative_guide","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/chapter\/united-kingdom-bribery-corruption\/","title":{"rendered":"United Kingdom: Bribery &amp; Corruption"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-142758","comparative_guide","type-comparative_guide","status-publish","hentry","guides-bribery-corruption","jurisdictions-united-kingdom"],"acf":[],"appp":{"post_list":{"below_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Fieldfisher<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2019\/11\/fieldfisher-square-logo-1.png\"\/><\/span><\/div>"},"post_detail":{"above_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Fieldfisher<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2019\/11\/fieldfisher-square-logo-1.png\"\/><\/span><\/div>","below_title":"<span class=\"guide-intro\">This country specific Q&amp;A provides an overview of Bribery &amp; Corruption laws and regulations applicable in United Kingdom<\/span><div class=\"guide-content\"><div class=\"filter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" placeholder=\"Search questions and answers...\" class=\"filter-container__search-field\">\r\n\t\t\t<\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<ol class=\"custom-counter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the legal framework (legislation\/regulations) governing bribery and corruption in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The primary legislation in the UK governing bribery and corruption is the Bribery Act 2010 (\u201cUKBA\u201d). The UKBA aims to provide an effective legal framework to tackle bribery and corruption in both the public and private sectors.<\/p>\n<p>The UKBA came into force on 1 July 2011. It provides for a general offence of bribery, which criminalises both the receipt and payment of bribes.<\/p>\n<p>Most recently, the Crime and Policing Act 2026 (&#8220;CPA&#8221;), which received Royal Assent on 29 April 2026, expanded the &#8216;senior manager attribution test&#8217; to all criminal offences, not just economic crime.<\/p>\n<p>This replaces the narrower position under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (&#8220;ECCTA&#8221;), where the regime applied only to specified economic crimes, such as fraud, bribery and money laundering.<\/p>\n<p>What this means in practice is that now senior managers, acting within the actual or apparent scope of their authority, can bind an organisation when considering whether the organisation is criminally liable for any offence, including bribery and corruption.<\/p>\n<p>For these purposes, a senior manager is a function, not title based role. It is an individual who plays a significant role in (i) making decisions about how the whole or a substantial part of the organisation&#8217;s activities are managed; or (ii) the actual managing or organising of the whole or substantial part of those activities.<\/p>\n<p>For historic bribery and corruption offences committed in whole or part before 1 July 2011, they are prosecuted under a number of different pieces of legislation, which comprises:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The offence of bribery at common law;<\/li>\n<li>The Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889;<\/li>\n<li>The Prevention of Corruption Act 1906; and<\/li>\n<li>The Prevention of Corruption Act 1916.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Which authorities have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute bribery and corruption in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The Serious Fraud Office (&#8220;SFO&#8221;) is the main investigating and prosecuting body for bribery and corruption offences in the UK.<\/p>\n<p>The primary prosecutorial agency for most criminal cases is the Crown Prosecution Service (&#8220;CPS&#8221;), which shares jurisdiction under the UKBA with the SFO, however the SFO is generally the primary prosecutor for complex bribery cases.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, the National Crime Agency (&#8220;NCA&#8221;) is mandated to work closely with the SFO. The International Corruption Unit (&#8220;ICU&#8221;) of the NCA, a specialist unit dedicated to investigating overseas bribery and corruption with a UK nexus, in partnership with the Department of International Development:,<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>investigates international corruption cases and related money laundering;<\/li>\n<li>investigates offences committed under the UKBA involving UK based companies\/nationals or international bribery with a UK nexus;<\/li>\n<li>traces and recovers the proceeds of international corruption;<\/li>\n<li>supports foreign law enforcement agencies with international anti-corruption investigations; and<\/li>\n<li>engages with government and business to reduce the UK\u2019s exposure to the proceeds of corruption.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Investigations conducted by the NCA are prosecuted by the CPS.<\/p>\n<p>Broadly speaking, when determining whether to commence a prosecution (against corporates or individuals), the SFO and the NCA will consider both the evidential case against the suspect (for which the test is whether a conviction is more likely than not) and whether a prosecution would be in the public interest.<\/p>\n<p>In Scotland, unlike the legal systems in England and Wales, and in Northern Ireland, all criminal investigations are undertaken by Police Scotland, which are in turn overseen and then prosecuted by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. The SFO or the NCA can investigate crimes that have occurred in Scotland provided they affect other parts of the UK. However, they cannot prosecute cases in or from Scotland.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How is \u2018bribery\u2019 or \u2018corruption\u2019 (or any equivalent) defined?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The UKBA defines a bribe as any advantage given to influence a person in the carrying out of a function, usually connected with their work or office.<\/p>\n<p>The UKBA contains four main bribery offences:<\/p>\n<p>i. a general offence of bribing;<\/p>\n<p>ii. a general offence of being bribed;<\/p>\n<p>iii. an offence of bribing a foreign public official (&#8220;FPO&#8221;); and<\/p>\n<p>iv. introduced a corporate offence of failing to prevent bribery by persons associated with relevant commercial organisations (the &#8220;Failure to Prevent Offence&#8221;).<\/p>\n<p>Under the UKBA, a person (natural or corporate) is guilty of a bribery offence if they:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>are in the UK, or have a &#8220;close connection to the UK&#8221;, or any aspect of the offence occurs in the UK;<\/li>\n<li>offer, promise, give, request, agree to receive, or request a financial or other advantage; and<\/li>\n<li>intend that in consequence, a person will &#8220;improperly perform&#8221; a \u201crelevant function or activity,\u201d or to reward them for doing so, or knowing or believing that acceptance of the advantage would of itself constitute improper performance.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>A \u201cclose connection to the UK\u201d includes, amongst other things, being incorporated under the laws of the UK, being a UK citizen, or ordinarily residing in the UK.<\/p>\n<p>A \u201crelevant function or activity\u201d includes, amongst other things, any function of a public nature, an activity connected with a business, and an activity performed in the course of employment (i.e. the definition is not restricted to public sector bribery).<\/p>\n<p>To \u201cimproperly perform\u201d means to perform the function in breach of an expectation to do so in good faith, impartially, or while in a position of trust. The expectation test is what an English Judge considers a reasonable person in the UK would expect. Any local custom or practice specific to the jurisdiction where the bribe occurred is actively disregarded, unless it is permitted under written law in the relevant country\/territory. The improper performance itself does not need to have a connection to the UK or to be carried out in the UK.<\/p>\n<p>As mentioned at 3(iii) above, Section 6 UKBA includes a specific offence of bribing an FPO. Broadly, an offence will be committed where a person directly or indirectly offers, promises, or gives a financial or other advantage to an FPO in their capacity as an FPO (or to a third party at the FPO\u2019s request) and intends to obtain or retain business or a business advantage. It only covers active bribery so there is no need to show improper performance of a function or activity.<\/p>\n<p>For the purposes of the UKBA, an FPO includes an individual who holds a legislative, administrative or judicial position of any kind; exercises a public function for or on behalf of a country or territory outside the UK or for any public agency or public enterprise of that country or territory; or is an official or agent of a public international organisation. Foreign political parties or candidates for foreign political office are not considered FPOs.<\/p>\n<p>The offence is not committed where the FPO is either permitted or required by the written law applicable to the FPO to be influenced in his or her capacity as an FPO. Effectively, this is only likely to provide protection in the very limited circumstances where a written law explicitly permits or requires the payment to the FPO.<\/p>\n<p>As mentioned at 3(iv) above, the Failure to Prevent Offence under section 7 of the UKBA applies to any organisation registered in the UK, or which carries on business or part of its business in the UK. The offence will be committed where a person \u201cassociated with\u201d it bribes another person, intending to obtain or retain business for the organisation or to obtain or retain an advantage in the conduct of business for the organisation.<\/p>\n<p>This is a strict liability offence that can be committed irrespective of where in the world the underlying bribe occurs. Note that a person will be \u201cassociated with\u201d the organisation for these purposes where the person acts on the organisation\u2019s behalf. This could include an employee, agent or subsidiary of the organisation. Contractors, suppliers, joint venture entities and joint venture partners may also be associated persons. While there is a rebuttable presumption that an employee acts on behalf of his or her organisation, an individual\u2019s association will be determined by reference to all relevant circumstances, not merely the relationship between the individual and the organisation.<\/p>\n<p>It is a complete defence for an organisation to prove that it had adequate procedures in place to prevent bribery.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does the law distinguish between bribery of a public official and bribery of private persons? If so, how is 'public official' defined? Is a distinction made between a public official and a foreign public official? Are there different definitions for bribery of a public official and bribery of a private person?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The general offences of bribery under the UKBA do not distinguish between bribes paid to a public official and those paid in the private sector. The focus of misconduct is the function that the person is performing, regardless in which sector that function is being performed.<\/p>\n<p>However, the UKBA does provide an additional offence of bribery in relation to FPOs (the Section 6 offence, as described above). This offence only applies to FPOs who exercises their function on behalf of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Who may be held liable for bribery?  Only individuals, or also corporate entities?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Both individuals and corporates can be held liable for bribery under the UKBA, with the exception of offences under Section 7 UKBA, which applies only to commercial organisations. Senior officers can be held jointly liable for the offences of their organisation if they consented to or connived in the offence and had a close connection to the UK.<\/p>\n<p>It is important to note the broad jurisdictional nexus of the UKBA, whereby the offences have both intra-territorial and extra-territorial application. For individuals, this means that a person will commit the offences of bribing another person, being bribed, and bribery of FPO&#8217;s:<\/p>\n<p>a. if any of the constituent acts or omissions take place in the UK;<\/p>\n<p>b. if no act or omission that forms part of the offence takes place in the UK;<\/p>\n<p>c. a person\u2019s acts or omissions done or made outside the UK would form part of such an offence if done or made in the UK; and<\/p>\n<p>d. the person has a \u201cclose connection with the UK\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>A &#8220;close connection&#8221; can mean that the person is, e.g. a British citizen, ordinarily resident in the UK or a body incorporated under the law of any part of the UK. In addition, the specific offence which applies to a commercial organization under Section 7 UKBA includes a body that is incorporated under the law of any part of the UK and that carries on a business (whether in the UK or elsewhere) and any other body corporate\/partnership (wherever incorporated\/formed) that carries on a business, or part of a business, in any part of the UK.<\/p>\n<p>The UKBA does not define the term \u201ccarries on a business or part of a business\u201c. UK Government Guidance indicates that with regard to organisations incorporated or formed outside the UK, whether they carry on a business in the UK will be determined by the courts and the Government advocates a common-sense approach.<\/p>\n<p>A foreign parent which has a UK subsidiary alone would not necessarily be carrying on a business in the UK. The Government\u2019s reasoning for this is that a subsidiary \u201cmay act independently of its parent company or other group companies\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>The implication is that, if the subsidiary is not truly independent, the parent may be regarded as carrying on business in the UK through that subsidiary. As the UKBA guidance makes clear, there is no general carve-out for entities with only a limited UK connection. Companies must therefore assess, on the particular facts, whether the UKBA applies to them.<\/p>\n<p>Under ECCTA, and now the CPA, both individuals and companies can be held liable. If a senior manager commits a bribery offence, at work and acting within the actual or apparent scope of their authority, the relevant company will also be liable for that offence. If found guilty, the organisation would face criminal conviction and a fine \u2013 this would be in addition to any sentences imposed on the offending employees. The maximum fine will depend on the particular offence charged, but for most serious crimes an unlimited fine will be available.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the civil consequences of bribery and corruption offences in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The SFO has civil recovery powers to recover property obtained through unlawful conduct without resorting to criminal prosecution. Victims of bribery may also make civil claims for damages against the briber and\/or the recipient of the bribe for financial loss. Such cases are becoming more common.<\/p>\n<p>For example, in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, Wrench v FirstRand Bank Ltd and Hopcraft v Close Brothers Ltd [2025] UKSC 33, the Supreme Court considered whether dealers arranging finance owed customers fiduciary duties, such that undisclosed or partially disclosed commissions amounted to bribes or secret profits. Each customer sought recovery from the lenders of a sum equal to the commission under the tort of bribery. Two customers also sought equitable compensation for the lenders\u2019 dishonest assistance in the dealers\u2019 receipt of secret profits. A third customer argued that his agreement with the lender was unfair under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court clarified several legal principles regarding fiduciary duties and bribery. It concluded that civil liability for bribery cannot arise unless a fiduciary duty of loyalty was owed, which was not the case in these transactions.<\/p>\n<p>In UBS v KWL [2017] EWCA Civ 1567 the Court of Appeal ruled that a water company could rescind a credit protection contract in relation to derivatives entered into with a Swiss bank on the basis of bribes paid by the company\u2019s financial advisor.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, s.90A Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (&#8220;FSMA&#8221;) claims are increasingly a feature of UK legislation. A number of s.90A FSMA claims have been brought in recent years on the back of, or parallel to, regulatory and\/or criminal investigations into listed companies. For example, a claim was brought by a group of institutional investors against Tesco PLC for losses allegedly suffered following an announcement that Tesco had overstated its profits, following the announcement of a DPA that Tesco entered into with the SFO in 2017 where they accepted responsibility for false accounting practices.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the criminal consequences of bribery and corruption offences in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>An individual convicted of committing any of the general bribery offences may:<\/p>\n<p>a) be imprisoned for a term of up to 10 years; and\/or<\/p>\n<p>b) be subject to an unlimited fine.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, they face various ancillary orders such as confiscation, compensation and costs orders. Directors may also be disqualified from acting as a director for between two and fifteen years.<\/p>\n<p>A company or partnership that commits any of the general bribery offences will be liable on conviction on indictment, to an unlimited fine, and to automatic and perpetual debarment from competing for public contracts.<\/p>\n<p>A conviction for the corporate offence of failure to prevent bribery under section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010 does not trigger mandatory exclusion from public procurement under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. Instead, it gives rise to a discretionary ground for exclusion, meaning that contracting authorities may (but are not required to) exclude the supplier from competing for public contracts ((see Public Contracts Regulations 2015, SI 2015\/102).<\/p>\n<p>Where an organisation has been convicted of a bribery offence, senior officers\/managers of the organisation who have consented to or connived in the conduct can also be convicted of the offence concerned.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does the law place any restrictions on hospitality, travel and\/or entertainment expenses? Are there specific regulations restricting such expenses for foreign public officials?  Are there specific monetary limits for such expenses?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Hospitality, travel and entertainment expenses (&#8220;Corporate Hospitality&#8221;) can be used as vehicles for bribery and are therefore treated as a high-risk area. In the UK, Corporate Hospitality of any value may amount to a bribe if provided with corrupt intent.<\/p>\n<p>Government issued guidance relating to the UKBA (the &#8220;Guidance&#8221;) provides some assistance when ascertaining what is and is not acceptable in the UK. For example, according to the Guidance, &#8220;hospitality or promotional expenditure which is reasonable, proportionate and made in good faith is an established and important part of doing business. The Act [UKBA] does not seek to penalise such activity.&#8221; However, the SFO and the CPS will prosecute in appropriate cases where bribes have been disguised as legitimate business expenditure.<\/p>\n<p>Corporate Hospitality is generally permitted if it is transparent, proportionate, reasonable and offered in good faith. Companies are expected to maintain proportionate controls over Corporate Hospitality, including record-keeping, monitoring and training for relevant personnel.<\/p>\n<p>Although the legislation does not set monetary limits, a company\u2019s gifts and hospitality policy should do so and include an approval process for Corporate Hospitality above specified thresholds. The policy should also provide clear guidance on Corporate Hospitality that may involve FPOs, tailored to the company\u2019s risk profile.<\/p>\n<p>As a general point, it is important for an organisation to be able to show that payments to a third party or agent reflect a reasonable level of compensation for the services being provided; this would reduce the chances of any such payment being viewed as corrupt. The UK government has confirmed that legislation should not be used to penalise legitimate and proportionate hospitality, including in respect of FPO&#8217;s, but its view is that hospitality is also an issue best considered by prosecutors rather than by Parliament.<\/p>\n<p>For hospitality events, organisations should check whether proposed guests are subject to gift or hospitality restrictions imposed by their industry or professional bodies. For example, the UK Ministry of Defence has previously issued guidance restricting hospitality for its staff, although such guidance is not always publicly available. It is therefore prudent to ask whether any relevant standards or guidance apply to the intended guest before extending an invitation.<\/p>\n<p>Various factors will be relevant to an objective analysis of whether an offer of hospitality or gift may be perceived to be improper and at risk of being viewed as a bribe. Such factors include the context of the provision of the event \/ gift; whether a reasonable person would regard the event \/ gift as unduly extravagant in the circumstances (including, for example, the relative seniority of the person being provided with hospitality and the likelihood that they would be improperly influenced by it); whether the event \/ gift would be proportionate; the nature of the benefits which might be secured from the guest or recipient; whether the event \/ gift is being offered in conjunction with (or in close proximity to) any procurement or contract negotiations; and whether there is transparency about the provision of the event \/ gift.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are political contributions regulated? If so, please provide details.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Various items of legislation apply to political contributions. The UKBA does not include any specific provisions in relation to political contributions, although the general offences of giving or receiving a bribe may be applicable.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are facilitation payments prohibited or regulated? If not, what is the general approach to such payments?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In the UK, facilitation payments are illegal, and paying one could lead to a prosecution under the UKBA, specifically section 1 (offence of bribing another person) or section 6 (bribing a FPO). If the individual paying the bribe had appropriate ties to a company, the company could also be prosecuted under section 7 (failure to prevent bribery).<\/p>\n<p>A facilitation payment refers to the practice of paying a small sum of money to a public official as a way of ensuring that they perform their routine, nondiscretionary duties, either promptly or at all. The SFO has stated that facilitation payments are illegal under the UKBA, regardless of their size or frequency, and there is not exemption or &#8216;tolerance threshold&#8217; (such as under the FCPA in the United States). Notably, however, a payment made under genuine duress or threat to safety may not meet the requisite mens rea for bribery. This is, however, not a general defence and is fact specific.<\/p>\n<p>In 2011 and thereafter, the UK government has recognised \u201cthe problems that commercial organisations face in some parts of the world and in certain sectors\u201d (see Guidance). However, in May 2019, the House of Lords\u2019 Select Committee on the UKBA recommended no changes in the law in relation to facilitation payments, stating that it would be a retrograde step to legalise facilitation payments. Moreover, in its response to the Select Committee\u2019s conclusions, the UK Government agreed that facilitation payments will remain a form of bribery and should not be legalised. The Government confirmed that there was no plan to change the law in this regard.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any defences available to the bribery and corruption offences in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>It is a defence for a person charged with an offence of bribing another person or being bribed to prove that the person&#8217;s conduct was necessary for the proper exercise of any function of an intelligence service, or the proper exercise of any function of the armed forces when engaged on active service.<\/p>\n<p>In the case of facilitation payments, it is also a defence of duress which is stated to be likely to be available in the case of payments made to protect \u201clife, limb or liberty\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>There are no other defences available to the general bribery offences where an individual or corporation pays or receives a bribe.<\/p>\n<p>The corporate Failure to Prevent Offence, under Section 7 UKBA, is a strict liability offence. However, if an organisation proves, on the balance of probabilities, that it had adequate procedures in place to prevent persons associated with it from engaging in bribery. The Government guidance (linked at 11) advocates for a principle-based approach, comprising (i) adequate procedures, (ii) top level commitment, (iii) risk assessments, (iv) due diligence, (v) communication, including training, and (vi) monitoring and review.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are compliance programs a mitigating factor to reduce\/eliminate liability for bribery and corruption offences in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>For the purpose of Section 7 UKBA only, it is a defence for an organisation to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that it had adequate procedures in place to prevent bribery. The effectiveness of an organisation&#8217;s compliance programme will be relevant to the consideration of whether it had adequate procedures.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, the SFO&#8217;s updated Guidance on Evaluating a Corporate Compliance Programme published on 26 November 2025 (&#8220;SFO Guidance&#8221;) notes that compliance programmes are relevant across the entire enforcement lifecycle, and the SFO treats compliance as central to charging decisions, eligibility for DPA&#8217;s, the terms of any resolution (such as monitorship) and sentencing. It notes that:<\/p>\n<p>a. It is a public interest factor in favour of prosecution if the company had an ineffective compliance programme. On the contrary, it is a public interest factor against prosecution if there is a genuinely proactive and effective compliance programme in place;<\/p>\n<p>b. The SFO will assess whether the programme operates effectively in practice (and policies do not just exist on paper); and<\/p>\n<p>c. The focus is on real-world effectiveness \u2013 it evaluates the programme both at the time of the offence and at the time of resolution.<\/p>\n<p>Following the introduction of the Criminal Finances Act 2017, it is now also a criminal offence for a company to fail to prevent a person associated with it from facilitating tax evasion. Similar to the Section 7 UKBA offence, the company will have a defence if it had prevention procedures in place which were \u201creasonable in all the circumstances\u201d to prevent the criminal facilitation of tax evasion. It will also be a defence if it was not reasonable to expect the company to have any prevention procedures in place.<\/p>\n<p>Similarly, under ECCTA, it is a criminal offence for a large organisation (one with (i) 250 employees; (ii) \u00a336 million in turnover; and\/or (iii) \u00a318 million in assets) to fail to prevent a person associated with it from committing a specified fraud offence. The company will have a defence if it can demonstrate that it had reasonable fraud prevention procedures in place, or that it was not reasonable to expect it to have such procedures in place.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Has the government published any guidance advising how to comply with anti-bribery and corruption laws in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The UK Ministry of Justice (&#8220;MoJ&#8221;) has issued guidance on procedures that commercial organisations can put into place to help prevent persons associated with them from bribing, with additional guidance provided by the SFO and the CPS. The key documents are as follows:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>&#8216;The Bribery Act 2010\u2014Guidance about procedures which relevant commercial organisations can put into place to prevent persons associated with them from bribing (see above);<\/li>\n<li>\u00a0\u2018Bribery Act 2010: Joint Prosecution Guidance of the Director of the Serious Fraud Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions\u2019, last reviewed in September 2019 (the &#8220;SFO\/CPS guidance&#8221;) (see here); and<\/li>\n<li>\u2018The SFO guidance. (see here)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The Guidance is not prescriptive as to the nature of systems and procedures that organisations should implement in order to meet the adequate procedures standard necessary to provide a defence against the Section 7 corporate offence. A one-size-fits all approach is simply not possible; whether an organisation has adequate procedures in place to prevent bribery will depend on the specific facts and circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n<p>However, the guidance highlights six principles of bribery prevention that an organisation\u2019s officers should consider when drafting an anti-bribery compliance program:<\/p>\n<p><strong>(a) proportionate procedures:<\/strong> an organisation\u2019s internal procedures to prevent bribery by persons associated with it ought to be proportionate to the bribery risks it faces and to the nature, scale and complexity of the organisation\u2019s activities;<\/p>\n<p><strong>(b) top-level commitment:<\/strong> the management of an organisation (i.e., directors, owners or any other equivalent body or person) ought to be committed to preventing bribery by persons associated with it and the management should endorse a culture in which bribery is never acceptable;<\/p>\n<p><strong>(c) risk assessment:<\/strong> an organisation should consider the nature and extent of its exposure to potential risks of bribery on its behalf by persons associated with it and its assessment ought to be \u201cperiodic, informed and documented\u201d;<\/p>\n<p><strong>(d) due diligence:<\/strong> an organisation must implement due diligence procedures, applying a proportionate approach, in respect of persons who perform or will perform services for or on its behalf;<\/p>\n<p><strong>(e) communication (including training):<\/strong> an organisation should seek to ensure that its anti-bribery policies are understood throughout the organisation via internal and external communication and, if appropriate, training; and<\/p>\n<p><strong>(f) monitoring and review:<\/strong> an organisation needs to periodically monitor and review its anti-bribery procedures, and where necessary, make improvements.<\/p>\n<p>The SFO\/CPS guidance is a joint guidance for prosecutors setting out the Directors&#8217; approach to deciding whether to bring a prosecution under the Act which can be instructive when considering points the prosecutor will likely focus on.<\/p>\n<p>Most recently, SFO Guidance in 2025 is the SFO&#8217;s internal guidance on evaluating compliance programmes (which forms part of its operational handbook). The guidance outlines how the SFO will examine an organisation&#8217;s compliance programme and includes a summary of the six principles of adequate procedures, described above.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are mechanisms such as Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) or Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs) available for bribery and corruption offences in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>DPAs have been available in England and Wales (through the Crime and Courts Act 2013) since 2014 as an alternative to criminal prosecution. DPAs are not currently available in Scotland or in Northern Ireland.<\/p>\n<p>To date, most major bribery and corruption cases in the UK have been settled by way of a DPA.<\/p>\n<p>Subject to the discretion of a prosecutor, they may invite a company to enter into negotiations to agree a DPA where evidence supports a prosecution of a company, and a DPA is deemed to be in the public interest.<\/p>\n<p>A DPA is an agreement that the company&#8217;s prosecution will be deferred subject to certain conditions, which usually include the payment of a financial penalty, payment of compensation, disgorgement of profits arising from the wrongdoing, and a financial contribution to the costs of the investigation. The DPA is subject to judicial agreement. If the corporate complies with the terms of the DPA, at the conclusion of the set period the criminal proceedings will be formally discontinued. If the company breaches the terms and the breach cannot be remedied, the criminal proceedings will resume.<\/p>\n<p>The key features of DPAs are that they enable a corporate body to make full reparation for criminal behaviour without the collateral damage of a conviction (for example, sanctions that could put the company out of business and destroy the jobs and investments of innocent people); they are concluded under the supervision of a judge, who must be convinced that the DPA is \u2018in the interests of justice\u2019 and that the terms are \u2018fair, reasonable and proportionate\u2019; they avoid lengthy and costly trials; and they are transparent, public events.<\/p>\n<p>In the SFO Guidance, it is also explicit that the SFO will evaluate a company&#8217;s compliance programmes when considering whether to enter into a DPA and compliance is a factor in whether a DPA is available at all.<\/p>\n<p>DPAs are not available to individuals.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does the law in your jurisdiction provide protection to whistle-blowers? Do the authorities in your jurisdiction offer any incentives or rewards to whistle-blowers?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Focusing on incentives for individuals here as opposed to corporates, there are employment law protections for whistleblowers in the UK in certain circumstances (a &#8220;qualifying disclosure&#8221; pursuant to Employment Rights Act 1996). However, other than entering into an agreement pursuant to section 73 of Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (see below), which typically involves an admission of guilt and a protracted process with no guarantees, there is no formal scheme for protection from prosecution or provision of leniency.<\/p>\n<p>Former SFO Director Nick Ephgrave consistently voiced his opinion in favour of offering financial rewards to whistleblowers more generally, however the existing UK reward schemes are limited in scope. For example, the Competition and Markets Authority (&#8220;CMA&#8221;) offers rewards of up to \u00a3250,000 for information about unlawful cartel activity that leads to enforcement action. Further, His Majesty&#8217;s Revenue and Customs (&#8220;HMRC&#8221;) recently introduced a new \u2018strengthened reward scheme\u2019 in the autumn 2025 budget to incentivise informants to report serious tax avoidance or evasion to HMRC. Under the new scheme, HMRC has the ability to pay informants an award of 15-30% of the additional tax collected. There is a minimum threshold of \u00a31.5m of additional tax that needs to be collected before the reward scheme will apply.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does the law in your jurisdiction enable individual wrongdoers to reach agreement with prosecutors to provide evidence\/information to assist an investigation or prosecution, in return for e.g. immunity or a reduced sentence?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. English law provides a statutory framework which allows individual wrongdoers to co-operate with prosecutors. In summary, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (&#8220;SOCPA&#8221;), as supplemented by the Sentencing Act 2020 enables prosecutors to offer:<\/p>\n<p>a. Immunity from prosecution (s.71): A designated prosecutor may grant conditional immunity, meaning that an individual will not be prosecuted for specified offences if they comply with the agreement;<\/p>\n<p>b. Restricted-use undertaking (s.72): A prosecutor may agree that information provided will not be used against the individual in criminal proceedings;<\/p>\n<p>c. Reduced sentence (s.74, Sentencing Act 2020); Where an offender is prosecuted, the court may impose a discounted sentence reflecting the assistance given; and<\/p>\n<p>d. Post sentence review (s. 388, Sentencing Act 2020): A sentence may be revisited and reduced later if further evidence is provided.<\/p>\n<p>These agreements, colloquially known as &#8216;SOCPA&#8217; agreements, are typically formalised and include conditions. If the individual breaches the agreement, any immunity or benefit can be revoked. It is important to note, however, that there is no entitlement to such an agreement and it is entirely discretionary. Further, full immunity is rare and more commonly, cooperation results in a reduced sentence, rather than no prosecution.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How common are government authority investigations into allegations of bribery? How effective are they in leading to prosecutions of individuals and corporates?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Enforcement investigations by UK state agencies into bribery and corruption are a fairly common occurrence. They are typically instigated and led by the SFO but are also prosecuted by agencies such as the Crown Prosecution Service working in partnership with investigators from regional police forces. While the SFO has secured convictions in respect of significant corporate entities in recent years (e.g. Glencore and Petrofac) as well as Deferred Prosecution Agreements (e.g. Amec Foster Wheeler, G4S, Airbus) there are concerns surrounding the SFO&#8217;s ability to secure convictions and maintain investigations in respect of individuals.<\/p>\n<p>In January 2026, in a significant DPA enforcement case against Guralp Systems Ltd, the High Court ruled that a DPA remains in force beyond its stated expiry date if the corporate entity has not met its financial obligations under the DPA, in this case, \u00a32 million in disgorgement. This decision further demonstrates the SFO&#8217;s remit and authority to not only negotiate and enter into DPA&#8217;s but take the necessary enforcement action if they are breached.<\/p>\n<p>In May 2026, the SFO entered its first corporate bribery DPA in nearly five years. British manufacturer, Ultra Electronics Holdings Ltd accepted responsibility for three Failure to Prevent Offences in connection with public sector contracts in Algeria and Oman, agreeing to pay a \u00a310.08 million penalty and \u00a34.8 million in SFO costs. In addition to the financial penalty, the DPA requires the company to meet strict conditions and demonstrate genuine and sustained reform under the scrutiny of the court.<\/p>\n<p>The SFO&#8217;s difficulties in securing convictions against both corporates and individuals under the previous &#8216;directing mind and will&#8217; principle are well documented, but with ECCTA lowering this threshold from board level to senior managers, and the CPA further widening this to all offences, we expect to see a greater volume of corporate prosecutions going forwards.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the recent and emerging trends in investigations and enforcement in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The investigations and enforcement landscape in this jurisdiction is undergoing structural change, driven by legislative reform, evolving enforcement strategies and not only increasing technological and cross border complexity, but also greater capabilities within regulatory bodies.<\/p>\n<p>As detailed above, there has been a fundamental expansion of corporate criminal liability, both through ECCTA and the introduction of the Failure to Prevent Fraud offence and the senior manager attribution test, and the subsequent expansion of this test to all criminal offences. This therefore provides a more realistic route to prosecution for large corporates and thus creates significant exposure to corporates across all sectors, not only for bribery, but all offences.<\/p>\n<p>In April 2025, the SFO published its long-awaited updated Guidance on Corporate Cooperation and Enforcement in relation to Corporate Criminal Offending (&#8220;April 2025 Guidance&#8221;) [2] in which it detailed a clear presumption in favour of DPAs where companies self-report suspected wrongdoing and cooperate fully, \u201cunless exceptional circumstances apply\u201d. The timetable envisages contact within 48 hours of a self-report, a decision on whether to investigate within six months, and, where applicable, completion of DPA negotiations within a further six months, reflecting a push for greater efficiency and faster resolutions.<\/p>\n<p>We also expect stronger cross-border, multi-agency coordination through the creation of the Enforcement Cooperation Taskforce. The Taskforce, comprising the SFO, France&#8217;s Parquet National Financier (&#8220;PNF&#8221;) and the Swiss Office of the Attorney General (&#8220;OAG&#8221;), is intended to improve information sharing, align strategy and reduce delay. This, in theory, should lead to better coordination between prosecutors, more efficient cross-border enquiries, and a more consistent approach to investigations and settlements.<\/p>\n<p>On 8 December 2025, the UK government published its UK Anti-Corruption Strategy 2025, which addresses domestic and international corruption threats with a particular focus on fraud and financial crime. Key measures include an additional \u00a315 million for the Domestic Corruption Unit, greater use of AI in investigations, consolidation of anti-money laundering supervision under the Financial Conduct Authority, consideration of whistleblower incentives, creation of an Ethics and Integrity Commission, and an illicit finance summit. The strategy also calls for tougher action against \u201cprofessional enablers\u201d, such as banks, and urges financial institutions to strengthen controls and whistleblowing procedures.<\/p>\n<p>Bribery and corruption enforcement is marked by a clear revival in SFO activity in 2026, with the Ultra Electronics DPA signalling a renewed focus on corporate bribery cases. The SFO is increasingly adopting a cooperation-led approach, under which early self-reporting and meaningful engagement may lead to a DPA. At the same time, compliance programmes are subject to closer scrutiny, investigations are becoming more proactive and intrusive, and coordination with international authorities is increasing. Bribery enforcement now sits within a broader framework of expanded corporate liability, making it part of a wider economic crime strategy rather than a standalone risk.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is there a process of judicial review for challenging government authority action and decisions? If so, please describe the key features of this process and remedy.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Judicial review exists as of right for any individual with standing to challenge the decision of a public body. The decisions of investigation and prosecution agencies are therefore capable of challenge in this way. A key feature of judicial review is that proceedings must be brought promptly and in any event, typically, within three months of the decision being challenged. The three main bases for bringing judicial review, in broad terms, are (i) illegality, (ii) procedural unfairness\/impropriety and (iii) unreasonableness\/irrationality. Human rights are often used as a basis to plead illegality. While any decision, including charging decisions, can technically be challenged, the hurdle is very high. Recent challenges to the SFO have focused on issues of disclosure and privilege ((1) R (on the application of AL) v Serious Fraud Office [2018] EWHC 856; (2) SFO v ENRC [2018] EWCA Civ 2006 and subsequent JR applications; (3) R (KBR Inc.) v SFO [2018] EWHC 2368 (Admin))<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Have there been any significant developments or reforms in this area in your jurisdiction over the past 12 months?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>As detailed above, the most significant development has been the expansion of the senior manager attribution regime under the CPA, and extending this to all offences, including bribery. In place of the narrow \u201cdirecting mind and will\u201d doctrine, the CPA establishes senior manager attribution as a general principle of criminal liability. Corporate exposure will no longer depend on whether wrongdoing can be pinned to the board or top executive tier, but on how decision-making authority is exercised in practice across the organisation.<\/p>\n<p>Whilst the UKBA has its own Failure to Prevent Offence, the senior manager regime offers no standalone reasonable procedures defence. Controls and policies assist only to the extent they evidence that the offending conduct fell outside the individual\u2019s actual or apparent authority.<\/p>\n<p>Further the publication of the Anti-Corruption Strategy 2025, there will be a greater focus on domestic and international corruption threats, demonstrated by an additional \u00a315 million investment for the Domestic Corruption Unit.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the first DPA in five years entered into by Ultra Electronics, coupled with a greater push for self-reporting and DPA&#8217;s signals that the SFO continues to take enforcement against bribery and corruption seriously.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any planned or potential developments or reforms of bribery and anti-corruption laws in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>As of now, there is no current proposal to replace or fundamentally alter the UKBA. In fact, recent policy documents, guidance and the new DPA suggest that the bribery remains at the forefront of enforcement action.<\/p>\n<p>As set out above, the most significant developments in this area were initially under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) and later the Crime and Policing Act 2026.<\/p>\n<p>Section 199 ECCTA introduced a corporate \u201cfailure to prevent fraud\u201d offence closely modelled on the Bribery Act\u2019s Section 7 offence (failure to prevent bribery). Under this law, a relevant body (company or partnership) is strictly liable if an employee or agent an associated person commits a specified fraud offence with intent to benefit the organisation (or its clients). Crucially, prosecutors do not need to prove any board-level involvement or even knowledge of the wrongdoing. Instead, the company has a statutory defence if it can show it had \u201creasonable fraud prevention procedures\u201d in place (or that it was reasonable to have none) at the time. The offence applies (for now) only to \u201clarge organisations\u201d \u2013 broadly those meeting two of three size thresholds (over 250 employees, \u00a336\u202fmillion+ turnover, \u00a318\u202fmillion+ assets).<\/p>\n<p>Further, the Crime and Policing Act 2026 has expanded corporate liability beyond economic crimes to all offences committed by a senior manager, moving away from the restrictive directive mind and will doctrine.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">To which international anti-corruption conventions is your country party?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The United Nations Convention Against Corruption; the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime; the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions; the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (with Additional Protocol); the Council of Europe Civil Law Convention on Corruption; and the Agreement for the Establishment of the International Anti-Corruption Academy.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Do you have a concept of legal privilege in your jurisdiction which applies to lawyer-led investigations? If so, please provide details on the extent of that protection. Does it cover internal investigations carried out by in-house counsel?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. If a document is covered by legal professional privilege in England and Wales, it entitles the party claiming privilege to withhold production from those seeking to inspect it or have it produced. That is so even where the party seeking inspection is a government authority or regulatory body. The two main forms of privilege which arise in the context of internal lawyer-led investigations in England and Wales are legal advice privilege and litigation privilege.<\/p>\n<p>Legal advice privilege protects from disclosure confidential communications between client and lawyer for the dominant purpose of giving or receiving legal advice or assistance. There is no need for litigation to be in train or contemplation for this form of privilege to apply. It includes seeking advice on what is prudent or sensible in a relevant legal context.<\/p>\n<p>Litigation privilege protects from disclosure confidential communications between client and lawyer or between client or lawyer and third parties for the dominant purpose of obtaining information in connection with, or of aiding or conducting, litigation, that has commenced or is in reasonable contemplation. Lawyers conducting investigations seeking to rely on this form of privilege should be careful to assess whether the investigation is concerned with adversarial proceedings and that they are in reasonable contemplation at the time.<\/p>\n<p>In the context of criminal enforcement, litigation privilege would apply if litigation, including prosecution, is underway or is a real likelihood. For litigation privilege to apply to an interview, the dominant purpose of the interview must be to prepare for the litigation. In the absence of litigation being a real likelihood or underway, the narrower definition of legal advice privilege may support a claim for privilege.<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of any communication is key. In relation to streams of communications, such as email chains, the concept of \u2018continuum of communications\u2019 may be applied. That is, whether the communication is part of a series of communications sent for the dominant purpose of instructing and receiving legal advice from lawyers. As opposed to where the request is otherwise for commercial or non-legal practical advice.<\/p>\n<p>Whether a lawyer is an in-house or external lawyer is not a determinative factor in England and Wales, but an in-house lawyer is much more likely to be asked for advice on commercial or non-legal matters within their function than an external lawyer. This may perhaps lead to a greater degree of scrutiny surrounding a claim to privilege arising by virtue of the involvement of an internal lawyer.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How much importance does your government place on tackling bribery and corruption? How do you think your jurisdiction\u2019s approach to anti-bribery and corruption compares on an international scale?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The UK government treats bribery and corruption as a clear policy priority, recognising them not just as legal issues but as risks to economic growth, national security, and public trust. That approach is reflected in a strong legislative framework centred on the UKBA and reinforced by recent measures such as the UK Anti-Corruption Strategy 2025, which sets out more than 100 commitments to strengthen enforcement, target professional enablers, and improve coordination and investigative capability across agencies.<\/p>\n<p>Internationally, the UK is widely seen as having one of the most comprehensive anti-corruption regimes, due in particular to the breadth of its offences, the strict liability corporate offence of failing to prevent bribery, and its broad extraterritorial reach. Its participation in major international conventions, including the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention and UNCAC, as well as peer review processes, further supports that reputation. As such, the UK\u2019s legal framework is often regarded as a global benchmark, however commentators continue to question whether enforcement outcomes, particularly prosecution numbers, match the strength of the regime. In that sense, the UK is best viewed as a legislative leader whose enforcement record remains under close scrutiny.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Generally, how serious are corporate organisations in your country about preventing bribery and corruption?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>UK companies operate in a highly regulated environment, governed by what is widely considered to be one of the toughest pieces of anti-corruption legislation globally, namely the UKBA.<\/p>\n<p>The UKBA is widely considered as being responsible for dissuading companies from allowing bribery to happen in their name, and providing a credible threat of prosecution for those who do not. Since the introduction of the UKBA, there has been a profound shift in corporate attitudes to bribery and corruption compliance. Companies are now far more likely than not to proactively implement bribery and corruption policies and procedures tailored to their particular business risk.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the biggest challenges corporate entities face when investigating bribery and corruption issues?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Businesses can uncover potential misconduct through an increasing number of means, including audits, screening procedures, due diligence exercises on commercial transactions, litigation, whistleblowing, investigative journalists, cybercrime or data breaches, to name a few. A fundamental question for these companies is whether, how and when to start an internal investigation into these allegations.<\/p>\n<p>Every internal investigation will turn on its own facts but there are some key considerations which, if dealt with appropriately at the outset, can dramatically impact the effectiveness of the investigation. We deal with these in turn below:<\/p>\n<p>a. Businesses will have to consider whether there is an obligation to notify any relevant authorities. The answer to this will impact the approach to the investigation more generally. It is worth noting that there is no obligation to notify the SFO, however the DPA Code of Practice states that it will be a public interest factor against prosecution if a company self-reports &#8220;within a reasonable time of the offence coming to light&#8221;. This is further strengthen by recent guidance which indicates a presumption of a DPA for self-reporting. This will be something to consider in the context of the particular investigation subject matter.<\/p>\n<p>b. It is important to take stock at the outset and assess whether an internal investigation ought to be commenced. There are many factors in favour of taking such steps, such as gaining a better understanding of the facts to allow for more informed decision making. However, there are significant downsides including the fact it is a resource heavy process. The allegations therefore need to be assessed as having some merit and legal advice should be sought on this point.<\/p>\n<p>c. Defining the investigation scope is of fundamental importance. It helps limit wasted costs and time, and will also act as a record of the corporate thought process at the time of the investigation, in the event it is scrutinised at a later date. The scope will be dictated by the particular issues in question, the timescale and whether there are concurrent investigations or litigation, and what jurisdictions are involved.<\/p>\n<p>d. Document management and preservation of documents is another important step. Handling documents in an investigation requires consideration of a number of involved issues such as data privacy, security of evidence and the effective use of technology to assist with document review. Having taken the necessary steps to preserve the relevant data, it will then be necessary to extract it and make it available for review. It is important to note that specific issues will need to be considered when data relevant to the internal investigation is located in multiple jurisdictions (including where it is hosted on cloud based or group-wide servers that might be based physically overseas).<\/p>\n<p>e. The importance of record keeping cannot be underestimated. A key decisions log should be maintained throughout, including any enquiries made and interviews conducted as part of the investigation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the biggest challenges enforcement agencies\/regulators face when investigating and prosecuting cases of bribery and corruption in your jurisdiction? How have they sought to tackle these challenges?  What do you consider will be their areas of focus\/priority in the next 12-18 months?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The reviews of Sir David Calvert-Smith and Brian Altman KC into prosecution failings by the Serious Fraud Office provide reports on the considerable challenges facing UK enforcement agencies dealing with these sorts of offences. The below highlights some of the key issues.<\/p>\n<p>The SFO has been beleaguered by staffing issues, in both recruiting and retaining experienced staff, as well as in attracting and retaining external counsel to work on its matters. The SFO announced in its five year plan in April 2024 that a new internal academy hoped to provide assistance with that. They are likely to require better funding to assist with that also.<\/p>\n<p>The advent of vast amounts of data in modern multi-jurisdictional investigations has led to failures in the disclosure processes at the SFO. In the worst examples, this has led to overturned convictions as recently as 2021 and 2022 from individuals convicted in the &#8216;Unaoil&#8217; prosecution. The SFO has stated in its five year plan that it intends to harness artificial intelligence, however it is not clear how AI can be deployed in the most labour intensive area of dealing with prosecution disclosure obligations under the relevant legislation (explored further below at Q 27).<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the SFO has been unsuccessful on a number of matters where it has secured Deferred Prosecution Agreements in its subsequent prosecution of individuals (e.g. Serco, Tesco and Barclays). Some have suggested that the statements of fact in agreed DPAs to not compare favourably to the evidence as it plays out before a jury; which can be used to advantage by the defence. Perhaps therefore, a greater overall strategy is required at an earlier stage in the life of an investigation so as to avoid these types of situations occurring again. Notably, however, in 2023 the SFO secured its first conviction of an individual in a DPA related matter in its successful prosecution of Roger Dewhirst. Whilst undoubtably a step in the right direction, this should be viewed with caution since Dewhirst pleaded guilty and therefore the evidence did not have to endure a trial.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How have enforcement agencies\/regulators in your jurisdiction sought to address the challenges presented by the significant increase of electronic data in either investigations or prosecutions into bribery and corruption offences?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Investigators in England and Wales have a duty to record, retain and reveal information to the prosecution pursuant to obligations under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). There are duties on the prosecution under the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996 (CPIA) to provide to the defence any documents in the possession of the prosecution which assist the case for the defence or undermine the prosecution&#8217;s case. In turn those duties are set out in various codes and guidance including inter alia the CPIA Code of Practice, PACE codes of practice and the Attorney General&#8217;s guidelines on disclosure.<\/p>\n<p>In order to comply with the requirements of disclosure, fundamentally it is the prosecution who must certify that they have been able to review the material provided to them and to assert that all that material which meets the test for disclosure has been provided. International bribery and corruption investigations typically involve vast amounts of data obtained from a huge number of sources and extracted from all kinds of different devices. In order to comply with disclosure in an analogue manner, therefore, a great amount of cost is required in order for prosecution lawyers to review the material.<\/p>\n<p>Notably. The SFO is preparing for more use of technology to assist. In its recent five year plan, the SFO said that it intended to make better use of technology including AI. It will be a difficult exercise to make use of such technology while also seeking to comply with the current regime, however.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What do you consider will be the most significant bribery and corruption-related challenges posed to businesses in your jurisdiction over the next 18 months?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Over the next 18 months, the main bribery and corruption challenges for businesses will arise from expanding legal exposure, more assertive and coordinated enforcement, and fast-moving risks linked to technology and global supply chains.<\/p>\n<p>In the UK, reforms such as expanded corporate liability and \u201cfailure to prevent\u201d offences are increasing the pressure on companies. They make it easier for authorities to prosecute misconduct by employees and third parties, while also raising expectations for demonstrable, risk-based compliance programmes.<\/p>\n<p>At the same time, enforcement bodies such as the SFO are becoming more intelligence-led, data-driven, and internationally coordinated. As a result, companies face a greater likelihood of cross-border investigations and closer scrutiny of their self-reporting and cooperation. A particularly significant risk lies in third-party and supply-chain relationships, where reliance on agents, intermediaries, and complex global networks can create corruption exposure that is hard to monitor but still attributable to the organisation.<\/p>\n<p>Technology adds to this pressure. AI, cryptoassets, and advanced data tools can enable more sophisticated financial crime while also increasing regulatory expectations for stronger monitoring and detection systems.<\/p>\n<p>Overall, businesses will need to operate in a more complex and interconnected compliance environment, where anti-bribery controls can no longer stand alone but must be integrated with broader financial crime, ESG, sanctions, and governance frameworks.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How would you improve the legal framework and process for preventing, investigating and prosecuting cases of bribery and corruption?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Interesting areas for possible reform might include the following two examples:<\/p>\n<p>a. Whistleblower protection in the context of criminal matters. While it is not always the case that whistleblower protection mechanisms lead to credible complainants, there can be no doubt that without any protection at all, whistleblowers with knowledge of corruption schemes lack an incentive to &#8216;speak up&#8217;. Further, in relation to whistleblowers, consideration should be given to expanding the incentivisation programmes currently available. Whistleblowers are widely recognised as one of the most effective sources of intelligence, however they often carry significant professional risk, therefore an appropriate incentivisation mechanism could offset that risk and encourage more people to come forward. That said, it would be a fine balance as the promise of financial reward could have an impact on the credibility of evidence and motives could appear as self-interest rather than in the public interest.<\/p>\n<p>b. A change to the disclosure regime in cases involving significant amounts of data. This might include a return to a &#8216;keys to the warehouse&#8217; approach, as argued for by several leading criminal practitioners, to disclosure (and as highlighted in the Sir David Calvert Smith Review and the evidence he gave to the Justice Select Committee). This approach involves giving the defence access to the data (or their own copy) to conduct their own review (without having to ask the authorities to conduct searches etc for them)<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n<div class=\"word-count-hidden\" style=\"display:none;\">Estimated word count: <span class=\"word-count\">9506<\/span><\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<\/ol>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/twentyseventeen\/src\/jquery\/components\/filter-guides.js\" async><\/script><\/div>"}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide\/142758","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/comparative_guide"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=142758"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}