Worldwide anti-corruption initiatives — a comparison of UK and US legislation
The UK’s Bribery Act (the Bribery Act), which came into force on 1 July 2011, was supplemented by guidance issued by the UK Ministry of Justice aimed at helping commercial organisations understand the types of procedures they could put into place to prevent bribery. Other guidance relating to the Bribery Act has also been published, such as the “Joint Prosecution Guidance” of the Director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Director of Public Prosecutions, the SFO’s recent revised guidance on the Act and Transparency International’s “Adequate Procedures Guide”.
By contrast, they key piece of long-standing anti-bribery legislation in the US has come with little official guidance until very recently. In November 2012, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a joint “Resource Guide to the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act” (the Guide). The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) was enacted as far back as 1977 and is aimed at combating the bribery of foreign officials. Unlike its predecessor, the much less detailed “Lay Person’s Guide to the FCPA”, this new Guide is intended to provide a comprehensive review of the US government’s position on enforcement under the FCPA and its expectations of corporate compliance procedures. Although it is not binding, the Guide will serve as a useful resource for companies faced with the challenge of complying with the FCPA.
This article provides a general comparison of the Bribery Act and the FCPA, in light of the new FCPA Resource Guide. It will be of relevance to corporates trading internationally, who may find they have to comply with both statutes…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Ince & Co briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Ince & Co
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Ince & Co
The case of Swallowfalls v Monaco Yachting concerned the construction of a yacht that was to be paid for by instalments upon the achievement of particular construction milestones.
The Court of Appeal has ruled in underwriters’ favour regarding the use of a fraudulent device by an assured in connection with the presentation of an insurance claim.