This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
In Focus Collections Overlooked by UK authorities?


A new report alleges that the authorities are overlooking bribery and corruption but, while some criticism is justified, the real picture is not so clear cut


Syed Rahman Legal director, Rahman Ravelli


A new report has made the claim that corruption in the UK is being overlooked. According to the Fraud Advisory Panel (FAP), plenty of attention is being given to corruption and bribery that is being carried out abroad, but the issue of tackling domestic bribery is not being given the time and resources it deserves. In its report, FAP says that it would be an


understatement to say that domestic picture is “neglected and poorly understood’’. It refers to a lack of data on the subject and voices concerns about what it calls “the growing strength of organised crime and the prominent influence of dirty money in UK society and markets”. If that was not enough, FAP also refers


to what it calls long-running and systemic overseas corruption that major UK corporations have been involved in, and the onset of a culture in the UK where corruption is seen as “the new normal’’. The report, however, was positive about


the government's anti-corruption strategy, which has been in place since 2017 and is due to run until 2020. Although FAP maintains that more still


needs to be done. FAP also joins the voices that have been heard in favour of the creation of an offence of failure to prevent an economic crime, which in itself would place many obligations on the UK corporations that FAP has pointed a finger at.


Yes, to a degree But is FAP justified in its claims which, after all, are fairly strong? In fairness, the answer is yes – to a degree. If we look at figures for the numbers of UK


Serious Fraud Office (SFO) prosecutions compared to the equivalent statistics for the United States’ Department of Justice, then there is a big difference – and the UK is the


September 2019


one that appears to be lagging behind. It is clear that, in the UK, most corporate crime investigations remain just that: investigations. They go no further than the investigation


stage for many years. It is common for the SFO and other enforcement agencies to not prosecute at the end of an investigation. Yet it may not be as clear cut as simply


saying that the UK is not doing enough – or not doing things well enough – to fight bribery and corruption. Fraud, bribery, and other complex


economic crime frequently crosses borders. This can mean that there is potential criminal liability in more than one jurisdiction. And


www.CCRMagazine.com


Fraud, bribery, and other complex economic crime frequently crosses borders. This can mean that there is potential criminal liability in more than one jurisdiction. And the geographical location of the conduct is not necessarily determinative of jurisdiction


the geographical location of the conduct is not necessarily determinative of jurisdiction. It is worth pointing out that in recent years


the UK has legislated to create a number of corporate offences with extra-territorial effect, including failing to prevent bribery under Section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010, and failing to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion under Sections 45 and 46 of the Criminal Finances Act 2017. These offences have broad jurisdictional


reach and may be prosecuted by UK, authorities even if the offending took place entirely overseas, so long as the defendant company is incorporated in the UK or carries out business here.


Blanket condemnation It may be harsh, therefore, to make a blanket condemnation of UK enforcement agencies’ approach to tackling economic crime. Two and a half years ago, the UK government issued a call for evidence on the issue of whether to extend the ‘failure to prevent’ model offences to other economic crimes. The results have not yet been published, but they may be imminent following the comments of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Bribery Act in their paper dated 14 March 2019; which expressed the hope that the government would ‘delay no more’ in delivering its conclusions.


Conclusion So while the issue of corruption has certainly not been eradicated in the UK – and shows no signs of going away of its own accord – it may well be that more may be done in the future to tackle it. But if that does not happen, it would


certainly give greater credence to FAP’s claims. CCR


33


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52