The UK responded with Bribery Act 2010 (BA 2010) after various international criticisms. The purpose of this article is to review its implications for UK regulated firms and foreign equivalents.
The approach adopted is qualitative relying on primary and secondary data analysis. The paper will analyse recent enforcement cases to guide the interpretations of the legal impact of the statute.
The study suggests five key findings. First, contrary to criticisms, BA 2010 is not without teeth. Second, the UK's position is not particularly unique as the USA and other European jurisdictions have broadly equivalent provisions. Third, BA 2010 contrary to criticisms does not use a one‐size fits all approach as allowance is provided for the use of common‐sense and proportionate approach. Fourth, significant numbers of regulated firms do not appear to implement comprehensive anti‐bribery systems. Fifth, there are some key differences with the better known US Foreign Corrrupt Practices Act (FCPA).
The analysis suggests that regulated firms and others affected by BA 2010 would need to take a more serious view of its legal consequences and respond with more robust anti‐bribery procedures and systems.
Contrary to the earlier alluded criticisms, the terms in the statute are to a large extent clear and accessible. The study reinforces the argument that current regulated‐firms' anti‐bribery procedures are not entirely satisfactory prompting the suggestion for improvements.
