Prison sentences have been handed down to four defendants in a case where corrupt payments were obtained for passing on confidential procurement information to bidding suppliers. The contracts related to a series of high-value oil and gas engineering projects between 2001 and 2009 in Iran, Egypt, Russia, Singapore and Abu Dhabi.
The sentences, imposed at Southwark Crown Court, related to an investigation which began in 2008 following a tip off from a bidding company which was approached by the defendants. The defendants were convicted of conspiracy to commit corruption offences under the predecessor legislation to the Bribery Act 2010. The sentences ranged from twelve months' to five years' imprisonment. Two defendants were also disqualified from acting as company directors for a period of ten years. In addition confiscation orders are being sought against three of the defendants under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
The confidential information corruptly supplied to bidders was held by companies that undertook procurement for the projects. The defendants were agents for the procurement companies and indicated to suppliers who were bidding for the contracts that information could be made available if they agreed to pay for it. Disguised as "consultancy services", the illicit payments were shared out amongst the conspirators.
Although the pre-Bribery Act law was seen as somewhat ineffective, the case shows that the courts are increasingly willing to impose severe sentences on conviction for corruption. This confirms the approach taken by the court in the recent Innospec case that corruption should be seen as being at the top end of serious corporate offending both in terms of culpability and harm.
The procurement companies co-operated fully with the SFO investigation e.g. enabling access to emails, mobile phone records etc and were not convicted themselves. It should, however, be noted that under the new Bribery Act it is easier to establish corporate liability in relation to intermediaries acting on a company's behalf regardless of whether or not they are employees or whether the company itself is aware of the wrongdoing.
SFO Director Richard Alderman commented: "Demanding backhanders in exchange for confidential and advantageous information saps business and is completely unacceptable to society. Hopefully these sentences will ring out the message loud and clear that the criminal justice system will do all it can to combat wrong-doing like this."
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
