In 2019 the Serious Fraud Office in the United Kingdom (UK) entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with a small UK resources sector company concerning bribery in South Korea. The company was required to disgorge its profits from the bribery but did not receive a penalty because of its small size and the fact that it had thoroughly investigated and self-reported the issues.

In 2015 Standard Bank PLC entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Serious Fraud Office in the United Kingdom to pay penalties of over US$25 million and US$7 million of compensation in connection with its role in an equity raising in Tanzania. The case highlights the risks of using agents to help win government contracts.

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.

In 2011, two subsidiaries of the Reserve Bank of Australia plead guilty to charges of bribing foreign officials in relation to a Malaysian bank during the period of 1999-2004 and were fined over A$22 million. Four employees, including the CEO and CFO of Securency, pleaded guilty to charges of conspiring to bribe and/or false accounting, each receiving between 6-24 months imprisonment.

Companies that have paid bribes can try to undo some of the harm through reparations. Enforcement agencies might also compel reparations to be made. This article outlines some of the forms that reparations can take and provides case studies from past enforcement actions.

What are the incentives for a company to refrain from bribery and implement sound anti-corruption measures? This short guide provides some answers.