Protect your business, comply with laws and effectively address bribery and corruption.
This collection of resources proposes steps to take when instances of bribery or corruption occur, or when there are near misses. Develop your business’ understanding of what has occurred and promote a culture of action, self-reporting, remedy and organisational learning.
This news story reports on the 2017 case where three individuals pleaded guilty and were convicted of conspiring to bribe an Iraqi foreign public official to secure infrastructure contracts for their construction company. One, a middleman who facilitated the bribe, was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. The other two, directors of the company, were sentenced to imprisonment for three years and four months and fined A$250,000 each.
This case study of the AWB class action examines allegations that can be made when a company does not report suspected corruption. Bribery and corruption allegations can have serious consequences for companies, including fines, loss of business and reputation, loss of licenses and inability to recover payments. For listed companies, those potential consequences may be material enough to need to be reported to the ASX.
Suspected bribery of foreign public officials can be reported to the Australian Federal Police (AFP). This fact sheet tells you how. Companies that discover foreign bribery and do not report to the AFP may face increased liability for maintaining a corporate culture that tolerates bribery. Companies that report their own conduct can receive discounted penalties (and may not be prosecuted at all).
Australia’s powerful confiscation laws ensure there can be no profit in bribery. Under the Proceeds of Crime Act, law enforcement agencies are equipped with a range of powers to trace, restrain and confiscate proceeds of crime against Commonwealth laws such as foreign bribery. Any asset can potentially be subject to confiscation if it is the ‘proceeds' or an 'instrument' of a Commonwealth offence.
Liability for bribery and corruption can arise under multiple jurisdictions both inside and outside Australia. In Australia, individuals and corporations can be liable for a range of state and territory offences including offences that apply to conduct in the private sector. For example, section 249B of the NSW Crimes Act contains offences for corrupt commissions or rewards.
Liability for bribery and corruption can arise under multiple jurisdictions both inside and outside Australia. In Australia, individuals and corporations can be liable for a range of state and territory offences including offences that apply to conduct in the private sector. For example, sections 356 and 357 of the ACT Criminal Code contain offences for bribery and corrupting benefits.
Liability for bribery and corruption can arise under multiple jurisdictions both inside and outside Australia. In Australia, individuals and corporations can be liable for a range of state and territory offences including offences that apply to conduct in the private sector. For example, section 176 of the Victorian Crimes Act contains offences for secret commissions.
Liability for bribery and corruption can arise under multiple jurisdictions both inside and outside Australia. In Australia, individuals and corporations can be liable for a range of state and territory offences including offences that apply to conduct in the private sector. For example, sections 442B and 442BA of the Queensland Criminal Code contain offences for secret commissions.
Liability for bribery and corruption can arise under multiple jurisdictions both inside and outside Australia. In Australia, individuals and corporations can be liable for a range of state and territory offences including offences that apply to conduct in the private sector. For example, section 150 of the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act contains an offence for bribery of a fiduciary.
Liability for bribery and corruption can arise under multiple jurisdictions both inside and outside Australia. In Australia, individuals and corporations can be liable for a range of state and territory offences including offences that apply to conduct in the private sector. For example, sections 529 and 530 of the Western Australian Criminal Code contain offences for corrupt rewards.
Liability for bribery and corruption can arise under multiple jurisdictions both inside and outside Australia. In Australia, individuals and corporations can be liable for a range of state and territory offences including offences that apply to conduct in the private sector. For example, section 266 of the Tasmanian Criminal Code contains secret commissions offences for corruption in relation to business.
Liability for bribery and corruption can arise under multiple jurisdictions both inside and outside Australia. In Australia, individuals and corporations can be liable for a range of state and territory offences including offences that apply to conduct in the private sector. For example, section 236 of the Northern Territory Criminal Code contains offences for secret commissions.
Geared towards the banking sector, this briefing paper offers guidance from global experts on how to develop effective grievance mechanisms. It proposes 10 straightforward recommendations, which can be applied to other sectors. This resource explains the United Nations Guiding Principles effectiveness criteria for grievance mechanisms and applies these to case studies. It offers justification for why SMEs in high risk jurisdictions and sectors would benefit from implementing an operational-level grievance mechanism.
In 2016, Rolls Royce agreed to pay a fine of over £500 million in a deferred prosecution agreement relating to bribery in China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Russia and Thailand. Rolls Royce received significant discounts in penalties for cooperating with the Serious Fraud Office in the investigation and implementing strong anti-bribery policies and procedures after the misconduct was uncovered.
In January 2020, Airbus entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) which included a fine of €991m in the United Kingdom (UK), as part of a total €3.6bn settlement across France, the UK and the United States for five counts of failure to prevent bribery. The conduct took place across Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan and Ghana between 2011 and 2015.