The United Kingdom’s (“UK”) Bribery Act 2010 (the “Act”) will come into force on 1 July 2011. It radically overhauls the UK's outdated and criticised anti-corruption laws and introduces a new, clearer regime for tackling bribery that will apply to all businesses based or operating in the UK. This article summarises the offences under the Act and the potential impact on Middle East companies operating in the UK and UK companies operating in the Middle East.
Summary of the offences
The Act sets out offences of bribing, being bribed and bribing a foreign public official (“FPO”). These offences will only be committed by an individual or commercial organisation if the relevant conduct (i) takes place within the UK or (ii) takes place outside the UK and the individual or company has a "close connection" with the UK (e.g. the individual is a British citizen or resident or the company is incorporated in the UK).
The Act also introduces a new corporate offence of failing to prevent bribery. The offence has wide reach and may catch companies incorporated outside the UK which have business operations or a subsidiary located in the UK.
Penalties include imprisonment or a fine or both. Businesses also risk being debarred from competing for public contracts in the UK.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Monday, April 16, 2012
6 Days: Solutions at hand are often lost to those who wait.
EIB has a zero tolerance policy to fraud and corruption in the projects it finances, as stated in ElB's Anti-Fraud Policy and confirmed by the Board in April 2008.
Labels:
anti-fraud,
best practice,
EIB,
ethics violations,
EU
Misleading can cost you dearly!!!
The U.S. Supreme Court left intact Jeffrey Skilling’s conviction for leading the Enron Corp. accounting fraud, refusing to grant a second hearing to the imprisoned former chief executive officer.
Today’s rebuff leaves Skilling with nothing to show for his victory at the Supreme Court in 2010, when the justices said prosecutors used an improper legal theory to convict him. A federal appeals court then reaffirmed his 19-count conviction, saying the verdict would have been the same regardless.
Skilling is serving a 24-year sentence in a federal prison in Colorado after he and former Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay were found guilty of deceiving investors about the company’s true financial condition. Lay died in 2006.
Today’s rebuff leaves Skilling with nothing to show for his victory at the Supreme Court in 2010, when the justices said prosecutors used an improper legal theory to convict him. A federal appeals court then reaffirmed his 19-count conviction, saying the verdict would have been the same regardless.
Skilling is serving a 24-year sentence in a federal prison in Colorado after he and former Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay were found guilty of deceiving investors about the company’s true financial condition. Lay died in 2006.
Labels:
accounting,
accounting fraud,
enron,
ifrs,
USA
Sunday, April 15, 2012
7 Days: So many problems can disappear with a little fair & reasonable behavior
Let's imagine a little country A that had worked hard for big country B in a joint venture. The little country was working a villa that was valued at say $14.85 mln and the little country's share was $3.95 mln. Then a dispute arose for any number of reasons sending the little country off to pursue all sorts of current and future bi-lateral and multi-lateral legal & political avenues to correct how it felt it had been wronged -- all to the embarrassment and cost really of big country B.
All little country A ever wanted was what its fair share, for its hard work had always been $3.95 mln.
The funny thing about this dispute is that it could be solved simply by selling the venture that A & B began. Little country A would make certain that big country B got its fair share of the proceeds of selling their venture (because honesty, transparency and trust are very important to little country A).
And then little country A would go off with its hard worked for stake of $3.95 mln and all of the bi-lateral and multi-lateral efforts would be withdrawn -- quietly, responsibly and leave big country B looking like the big dog on the block not to be messed with.
Everyone would live happily ever after.
All little country A ever wanted was what its fair share, for its hard work had always been $3.95 mln.
The funny thing about this dispute is that it could be solved simply by selling the venture that A & B began. Little country A would make certain that big country B got its fair share of the proceeds of selling their venture (because honesty, transparency and trust are very important to little country A).
And then little country A would go off with its hard worked for stake of $3.95 mln and all of the bi-lateral and multi-lateral efforts would be withdrawn -- quietly, responsibly and leave big country B looking like the big dog on the block not to be messed with.
Everyone would live happily ever after.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)