{"id":467,"date":"2019-03-18T12:42:11","date_gmt":"2019-03-18T12:42:11","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2019-06-07T12:58:02","modified_gmt":"2019-06-07T12:58:02","slug":"bribery-act-2010-analysis-9021","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/business-law\/bribery-act-2010-analysis-9021.php","title":{"rendered":"Is the Bribery Act 2010 Harmful to UK Companies?"},"content":{"rendered":"

The introduction of the Bribery Act 2010 was unnecessary and
\npotentially harmful to the interests of U.K. companies. Discuss. <\/strong>(100%)<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n

Bribery has been described by the English Court as \u201can evil practice which threatens the foundations of any civilised society\u201d, and \u201ccorrupts not only the recipient but also the giver of the bribe\u201d (Hudson, 2012). Ever since USA introduced its Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in 1977, there has been growing international pressure for global anti-corruption reform. However, UK\u2019s anti-bribery legislations has persistently been criticised, both domestically and abroad, for being outdated and difficult to apply in practice. <\/p>\n

In 2008, an OECD Working Group condemned the UK for its failure in prohibiting bribes being paid by its companies in foreign markets as well as its ineffective implementation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention (OECD, 2008). The BAE scandal in Saudi Arabia further highlighting the deficiencies, complexity and general lack of clarity within the pre-existing legislations. On 8 April 2010, the Bribery Act 2010 (the \u2018Act\u2019) finally received a Royal Assent, reflecting UK\u2019s cumulative efforts to consolidate, update and extend its anti-bribery laws<\/a>. It was described as \u201cthe toughest anti-corruption legislation in the world\u201d (Atkins,2011), providing the UK with the most draconian and far reaching anti-corruption legislation in the world (Harrison and Ryder, 2016).  Nonetheless, there are concerns that this Act will make UK businesses less competitive compared to other international players, who are subject to less draconian anti-bribery laws.<\/p>\n

This paper seeks to examine key areas of concern for UK companies within new Act, namely: corporate<\/a> offence, facilitation payment, corporate hospitality and penalties. These offences will then be compared to the measures taken by the FCPA, which is the world\u2019s leading anti-bribery act, in order to determine if the Act is too extreme and aggressive in comparison.    <\/p>\n

Brief Outline of Bribery Act 2010<\/h2>\n

The Bribery Act\u2019s main objective is to provide a comprehensive anti-bribery statute that will replace the patchwork of statutory and common law offences. At its core, the Act creates four separate anti-bribery offences:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Bribing
    \nanother person [s.1]<\/li>\n
  2. Being
    \nbribed [s.2]<\/li>\n
  3. Bribing
    \na foreign public official [s.6]<\/li>\n
  4. Corporate
    \noffence of failing to prevent bribery by an associated person [s.7]<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Offences 1-3 can
    \nbe committed by an individual or a commercial organisation, whereas offence 4
    \ncan only be committed by a commercial organisation. <\/p>\n

    Corporate Offence <\/h2>\n

    The new
    \ncorporate offence for \u2018failure to prevent bribery\u2019 provision (s.7) places
    \nsecondary criminal liability for another\u2019s actions and is a first in the
    \ninternational anti-corruption arena. This new legislation allows the court to sidestep
    \nthe limitations of corporate criminal liability under UK\u2019s common-law
    \nidentification doctrine (established in Tesco v Nattrass case), whereby a
    \ncompany is held criminally liable only on the basis of the acts and state of
    \nmind of senior company officials who represent its \u201cdirecting mind and will\u201d,
    \nwhich is inadequate in today\u2019s modern decentralised multi-national corporation.
    \n <\/p>\n

    It applies
    \nstrict liability to a relevant commercial organisation which carries on a
    \nbusiness or part of a business in the UK, whereby bribery was committed by an
    \n\u2018associated person\u2019 (defined as a one who \u2018performs services\u2019 for or on behalf
    \nof the organisation). The company\u2019s only defence against this offence is to prove
    \nthat it had in place \u201cadequate procedures\u201d to prevent bribery from taking
    \nplace. In comparison, FCPA\u2019s accounting provision does not permit compliance
    \nprogrammes to shield a company from liability (Breslin et al.,2010). Hence,
    \nthis new measure may not be as draconian as perceived.<\/p>\n

    Notably, it is irrelevant whether the associated person is unconnected with the UK or the entire offence takes place outside the UK. For example, a parent company incorporated in Japan, whose agent based in China bribes a Chinese official for the parent company\u2019s benefit, could be prosecuted in the UK because one of its subsidiaries is located in the UK, regardless of the fact that the UK subsidiary was uninvolved in the act of bribery in China (Harris, 2012). This place a huge burden on foreign companies to have adequate anti-bribery procedures in place, even though it only carries out a small part of its business in the UK. Hence, it may deter foreign companies from setting up business in the UK. <\/p>\n

    Furthermore, this
    \nplace companies subjected to this jurisdiction at a disadvantage against its
    \ncompetitor, as it must commit more resources in selecting and monitor the
    \ncompliance of all parties associated with it. Moreover,
    \nlarge companies with long supply chains involving several entities are often
    \nonly in contact with its contractual counterparty and not the other parties in
    \nthe contractual chain. Hence, it will be near impossible for them to control
    \nand monitor all associated parties. According to the Ministry of Justice\u2019s (MoJ)
    \npublished guidelines, the company\u2019s only approach is to employ a risk-based due
    \ndiligence procedures in their relationship with the contractual counterparty
    \nand by requesting that the counterparty adopt a similar approach with the next
    \nparty in the chain. Moreover, concerns have been raised in regards to the
    \nvulnerability of small and medium-sized enterprises(SMEs) in this situation, as
    \nthey unable to put in place elaborate systems and controls due to their limited
    \nresources (Tyler, 2010). <\/p>\n

    This policy emphasises
    \nthe company\u2019s responsibility in maintaining and creating an anti-bribery
    \nculture. However, questions have been raised in regards to what constitutes
    \n\u201cadequacy\u201d in this context. Wee (2014) criticised the provision to be harsh as
    \nit uses the term \u2018prevent\u2019, which means stopping something absolutely, instead
    \nof trying your best to hinder it. Nonetheless, even though having a robust
    \ncorporate compliance programme in place entails a cost, it is minimal compared
    \nto the reputational damage, legal costs and distraction from core business
    \npurpose that may result from substantial criminal investigation (Harris, 2012).
    \nNevertheless, there has only been three prosecutions under the strict liability
    \noffence, for which in all three cases, the corporations involved admitted
    \nliability. Hence, it remains to be seen on how each of these aspects will be
    \ndealt with in practice and how the statutory \u2018adequate procedures\u2019 defence is
    \ntested. <\/p>\n

    Facilitation Payments <\/h2>\n

    Governed by s.6 of the Act, an individual will be guilty if he offers or gives an advantage to a foreign public official directly or through a third party. This inclusion of \u2018third party\u2019 is intended to prevent individuals using intermediaries to avoid committing a crime themselves. <\/p>\n

    Under the current OECD convention, facilitation payments, which are small bribes paid to facilitate routine government actions, are permitted. However, the UK has never recognised facilitation payments as exception to the foreign bribery offence and this position is reinforced in the Bribery Act. It does not matter if there is no intent to corrupt the government official in question. A bribery offence has been committed if the payment was made in order to \u201cinfluence\u201d the official, or was made with the intention of obtaining or retaining business or an advantage in the conduct of business. Due to the wide jurisdictional reach, a UK persons working in other jurisdictions have to adhere to the principles of the UK act, even if the local law does not classify facilitation payment as criminal. The only exception is when the foreign official is permitted by the written local law to be influenced by the offer, promise or gift.<\/p>\n

    This led to an outcry from businesses, who accused the Act of constraining British companies conducting business in foreign countries, arguing that in some countries, such as China and India, such payments are customary and so ingrained within the country\u2019s culture that without them, business in those countries will become virtually impossible. Furthermore, the fact that FCPA offers a \u2018safe harbour\u2019 for such payments could may disadvantage UK companies against international competitors. Overall, making it difficult for them to compete in the foreign market. <\/p>\n

    Corporate Hospitality<\/h2>\n

    Another concern raised relates to gifts and corporate hospitality, which is used to smoothen business relationships and is generally accepted to be a legitimate part of doing business. <\/p>\n

    Due to the wide definitions employed under s.1 and s.2 of the Act, both giving and receiving corporate hospitality could potentially be unlawful if the \u201cimproper performance\u201d test is satisfied. However, it will be subjected to evidence and its surrounding circumstances. This area is further governed by s.7, which makes commercial organisations responsible in reviewing their policies on hospitality and promotional or other business expenditure in the selection and implementation of their bribery prevention procedures. The only defence is to demonstrate that it had adequate procedures in place to prevent bribery. <\/p>\n

    Notably, certain cases of offence for giving and receiving a bribe may be prosecuted without proof of intent. According to the \u2018expectation test\u2019, it will suffice if a reasonable person in the UK consider that in accepting the hospitality, the function was improperly performed as a result. Hence, the recipient or giver of this hospitality can be guilty of an offence without knowing that this \u2018friendly gesture\u2019 amounted to a bribe. In comparison, the FCPA only applies to person giving or offering a bribe and not to those accepting one. <\/p>\n

    The ambiguity of
    \nthe law has created many confusions and uncertainties among businesses in
    \nrelation to its application and to what extent is corporate hospitality
    \nconsidered a bribe. However, due to the lack of trialled cases, the extent of
    \nit will depend on the results of future prosecutions. Nonetheless, the Ministry
    \nof justice assured that \u201cBona fide expenditure which seeks to improve the image
    \nof a companies is recognised as an established and important part of doing
    \nbusiness and it is not the intention of the Act to criminalise such behaviour\u201d  <\/p>\n

    Penalties and Debarment<\/h2>\n

    Under the Bribery Act, those who fail to comply with the new provisions will face significant sanctions including a maximum of 10 years\u2019 imprisonment (currently 7 years in the UK) as well as potentially unlimited monetary fines. In contrast, the maximum sentence under the FCPA is 5-years of imprisonment and fines of up to US$2million or twice the gross pecuniary gain or loss. Hence, the measures taken by the UK is harsher than that of USA. Additionally, \u2018potentially unlimited\u2019 fines represent uncertainties for corporations who violated the anti-bribery provisions as they may be subjected to extremely high fines in order to deter others, and may result in a heavy burden for SMEs with limited resources. This has caused significant concern about the court\u2019s approach towards the penalty. The Confederation of British Industry stated that the fine should be assessed in a way that is proportionate and based on the turnover of the business such that SMEs are not unfairly penalised (Wee, 2014). <\/p>\n

    Furthermore, corporation who violates s.7 of the Bribery Act risks being barred from tendering for government contracts in accordance with the Public Contracts Regulations 2006. It is argued that this may potentially alienate future investors and may affect businesses which survive on public sector procurement work as the criminal conviction may affect their reputation (Breslin et al.,2010). Furthermore, it was also argued that debarment would be contrary to SFO\u2019s intention to encourage companies to self-report bribery as the likelihood that a company would self-report bribery is reduced if there is the potential that it may be barred. <\/p>\n

    Conclusion<\/h2>\n

    The Bribery Act is a major reform for the UK\u2019s anti-bribery laws. It introduces harsher penalties for those who violate the Act, has a wider extraterritorial applicability, and places an obligation on corporations to monitor their employees and to implement policies prohibiting corrupt conduct. Most importantly, it simplifies and consolidates UK\u2019s statutory and common law bribery offences. <\/p>\n

    Even though it is often accused of being harmful towards UK companies, it is unlikely that the tougher stance taken by the UK on bribery will have an adverse effect on the global competitiveness of UK companies than that already taken by the FCPA. Furthermore, UK\u2019s tough stance against this issue send a clear message to the rest of the world that any form of bribery and corruption will not be tolerated, reinforcing the integrity and positive image of the UK market. However, even though the Bribery Act 2010 have enormous potential, its practical effects have yet to be exemplified due to the limited cases trialled under it. Moreover, there are still many uncertainties within the new Act that needs to be clarified. Nonetheless, this new tougher anti-bribery regime reflects UK\u2019s commitment to fortify existing laws to meet international standards and ensure Britain\u2019s engagement in the international fight against bribery<\/p>\n

    References<\/h2>\n

    Atkins, M. (2011) Introduction of the
    \nUK Bribery Act. Financier Worldwide. <\/em>[Online]
    \nAvailable at:     http:\/\/documents.jdsupra.com\/fe087409-a5f9-45ab-9591-c4edc33a3629.pdf<\/a>. [Accessed on 01 April 2017]<\/p>\n

    Bean,
    \nB. W., & MacGuidwin, E. H. (2012). Unscrewing the Inscrutable: The UK
    \nBribery Act 2010.<\/p>\n

    Belch,
    \nG. (2014). An Analysis of the Efficacy of the Bribery Act 2010. Aberdeen Student L. Rev.<\/em>, 5<\/em>, 134.<\/p>\n

    Breslin,
    \nB., Ezickson, D. & Kocoras, J. (2010). The Bribery Act 2010 Raising the Bar
    \nabove the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. McDermott
    \nWill & Emery. <\/em>[Online] Available at:     http:\/\/files.mwe.com\/info\/news\/wp0910b.pdf<\/a> [Accessed 03 April 2017]<\/p>\n

    Harris, K. (2012). Assessing the
    \nextra-territorial reach of the Bribery Act. International
    \nLaw Office. <\/em>[Online] Available at:     http:\/\/www.internationallawoffice.com\/Newsletters\/White-Collar-Crime\/United-Kingdom\/Arnold-Porter-LLP\/Assessing-the-extra-territorial-reach-of-the-Bribery-Act#<\/a>
    \n[Accessed on 02 April 2017]<\/p>\n

    Harrison,
    \nK., & Ryder, N. (2016). The
    \nlaw relating to financial crime in the United Kingdom<\/em>. Routledge.<\/p>\n

    Hudson,
    \nA. (2012). Equity and trusts<\/em>.
    \nRoutledge.<\/p>\n

    Ministry of Justice (n.d.). The
    \nBribery Act 2010: Guidance about procedures which relevant commercial
    \norganisations can put into place to prevent persons associate with them from
    \nbribing. Ministry of Justice. <\/em>[Online]
    \nAvailable at:     https:\/\/www.justice.gov.uk\/downloads\/legislation\/bribery-act-2010-guidance.pdf<\/a>
    \n[Accessed on 02 April 2017]<\/p>\n

    OECD (2008).
    \nUnited Kingdom: Phase 2bis: Report on the Application of Application Of The
    \nConvention On Combating Bribery Of Foreign Public Officials In International
    \nBusiness Transactions And The 1997 Recommendation On Combating Bribery In
    \nInternational Business Transactions. [Online] Available at:     www.oecd.org\/unitedkingdom\/41515077.pdf<\/a> [Accessed on 30 March 2017]<\/p>\n

    Pieth,
    \nM., Low, L. A., & Cullen, P. J. (Eds.). (2007). The OECD convention on bribery: A
    \ncommentary<\/em>. Cambridge University Press.<\/p>\n

    Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass
    \n[1972] Appeal Cases 153<\/p>\n

    Tyler,
    \nR. (2010). Bribery Act Guidance on Corporate Hospitality a \u2018Bureaucratic
    \nNightmare\u2019. The Telegraph. <\/em>[Online]
    \nAvailable at:     http:\/\/www.telegraph.co.uk\/finance\/8007179\/Bribery-Act-guidance-on-corporate-hospitality-a-bureaucratic-nightmare.html<\/a> [Accessed on 02 April 2017]<\/p>\n

    United Nations (2012). United
    \nNations Convention Against Corruption. United
    \nNations Office on Drugs and Crime. <\/em>[Online] Available at: <     https:\/\/www.unodc.org\/documents\/brussels\/UN_Convention_Against_Corruption.pdf<\/a>><\/p>\n

    Warin,
    \nF. J., Falconer, C., & Diamant, M. S. (2010). The British are Coming:
    \nBritain Changes Its Law on Foreign Bribery and Joins the International Fight
    \nagainst Corruption. Tex. Int’l
    \nLJ<\/em>, 46<\/em>, 1.<\/p>\n

    Wee,
    \nS. Y. (2012). The OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public
    \nOfficials and its effectiveness in Australia: Are we doing enough. Int’l Trade & Bus. L. Rev.<\/em>, 15<\/em>, 360.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    The UK\u2019s anti-bribery legislations has persistently been criticised, both domestically and abroad, for being outdated and difficult to apply in practice.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[48],"tags":[85],"class_list":["post-467","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-free-law-essaysbusiness-law","tag-uk-law"],"yoast_head":"\nIs the Bribery Act 2010 Harmful to UK Companies? | LawTeacher.net<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The UK\u2019s anti-bribery legislations has persistently been criticised, both domestically and abroad, for being outdated and difficult to apply in practice.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/business-law\/bribery-act-2010-analysis-9021.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Is the Bribery Act 2010 Harmful to UK Companies?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The UK\u2019s anti-bribery legislations has persistently been criticised, both domestically and abroad, for being outdated and difficult to apply in practice.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/business-law\/bribery-act-2010-analysis-9021.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"LawTeacher.net\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1080\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"ScholarlyArticle\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/business-law\/bribery-act-2010-analysis-9021.php#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/business-law\/bribery-act-2010-analysis-9021.php\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\"},\"headline\":\"Is the Bribery Act 2010 Harmful to UK Companies?\",\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/business-law\/bribery-act-2010-analysis-9021.php\"},\"wordCount\":2462,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"UK Law\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Business Law\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/business-law\/bribery-act-2010-analysis-9021.php\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/business-law\/bribery-act-2010-analysis-9021.php\",\"name\":\"Is the Bribery Act 2010 Harmful to UK Companies? | LawTeacher.net\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"description\":\"The UK\u2019s anti-bribery legislations has persistently been criticised, both domestically and abroad, for being outdated and difficult to apply in practice.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/business-law\/bribery-act-2010-analysis-9021.php#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/business-law\/bribery-act-2010-analysis-9021.php\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/business-law\/bribery-act-2010-analysis-9021.php#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Is the Bribery Act 2010 Harmful to UK Companies?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"description\":\"The Law Essay Professionals\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"width\":250,\"height\":250,\"caption\":\"Law Teacher\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0\"],\"description\":\"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.\",\"email\":\"contact@lawteacher.net\",\"telephone\":\"+44 115 966 7966\",\"numberOfEmployees\":{\"@type\":\"QuantitativeValue\",\"minValue\":\"51\",\"maxValue\":\"200\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\",\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"LawTeacher\"},\"description\":\"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile\"],\"knowsAbout\":[\"Contract Law\",\"Criminal Law\",\"Constitutional and Administrative Law\",\"EU Law\",\"Tort Law\",\"Property Law\",\"Equity and Trusts\",\"Jurisprudence\",\"Company Law\",\"Commercial Law\",\"Family Law\",\"Human Rights Law\",\"Employment Law\",\"Evidence\",\"Public International Law\",\"Legal Research and Methods\",\"Dispute Resolution\",\"Business Law and Practice\",\"Civil Litigation\",\"Criminal Litigation\",\"Professional Conduct\",\"Taxation\",\"Wills and Administration of Estates\",\"Solicitors\u2019 Accounts\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Is the Bribery Act 2010 Harmful to UK Companies? | LawTeacher.net","description":"The UK\u2019s anti-bribery legislations has persistently been criticised, both domestically and abroad, for being outdated and difficult to apply in practice.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/business-law\/bribery-act-2010-analysis-9021.php","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Is the Bribery Act 2010 Harmful to UK Companies?","og_description":"The UK\u2019s anti-bribery legislations has persistently been criticised, both domestically and abroad, for being outdated and difficult to apply in practice.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/business-law\/bribery-act-2010-analysis-9021.php","og_site_name":"LawTeacher.net","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","article_published_time":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":1080,"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"LawTeacher","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_site":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"LawTeacher","Estimated reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"ScholarlyArticle","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/business-law\/bribery-act-2010-analysis-9021.php#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/business-law\/bribery-act-2010-analysis-9021.php"},"author":{"name":"LawTeacher","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e"},"headline":"Is the Bribery Act 2010 Harmful to UK Companies?","datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/business-law\/bribery-act-2010-analysis-9021.php"},"wordCount":2462,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"keywords":["UK Law"],"articleSection":["Business Law"],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/business-law\/bribery-act-2010-analysis-9021.php","url":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/business-law\/bribery-act-2010-analysis-9021.php","name":"Is the Bribery Act 2010 Harmful to UK Companies? | LawTeacher.net","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website"},"datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","description":"The UK\u2019s anti-bribery legislations has persistently been criticised, both domestically and abroad, for being outdated and difficult to apply in practice.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/business-law\/bribery-act-2010-analysis-9021.php#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/business-law\/bribery-act-2010-analysis-9021.php"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/business-law\/bribery-act-2010-analysis-9021.php#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Is the Bribery Act 2010 Harmful to UK Companies?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","name":"Law Teacher","description":"The Law Essay Professionals","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization","name":"Law Teacher","alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","width":250,"height":250,"caption":"Law Teacher"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0"],"description":"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.","email":"contact@lawteacher.net","telephone":"+44 115 966 7966","numberOfEmployees":{"@type":"QuantitativeValue","minValue":"51","maxValue":"200"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e","name":"LawTeacher","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"LawTeacher"},"description":"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile"],"knowsAbout":["Contract Law","Criminal Law","Constitutional and Administrative Law","EU Law","Tort Law","Property Law","Equity and Trusts","Jurisprudence","Company Law","Commercial Law","Family Law","Human Rights Law","Employment Law","Evidence","Public International Law","Legal Research and Methods","Dispute Resolution","Business Law and Practice","Civil Litigation","Criminal Litigation","Professional Conduct","Taxation","Wills and Administration of Estates","Solicitors\u2019 Accounts"],"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/467","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=467"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/467\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=467"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=467"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=467"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}