The first contested “failure to prevent” case, in which a company sought to rely on having adequate procedures in place, concluded with Skansen Interiors, a British refurbishment company, being found guilty.
Skansen Interiors Limited, now a dormant office interiors contractor, self-reported to the UK National Crime Agency that its former managing director had paid a bribe worth GBP 10,000 to secure a GBP 6 million refurbishment contract.
As a result, the company was prosecuted under the Section 7 corporate offence under the Bribery Act for failing to prevent bribery.
At trial, Skansen established that it had “adequate” anti-bribery procedures in place, but the jury found that the company had failed to discharge that burden and hence was guilty of the offence. Despite having policies concerning transparency and integrity, as well as financial controls requiring multiple approvals for transactions, Skansen
1. DID NOT have a policy specifically directed to preventing offences under the Bribery Act,
2. DID NOT have a dedicated compliance officer, and
3. HAD NOT trained its employees to comply with the provisions under the UK Bribery Act.
The prosecution against Skansen, although small in size, serves as an important reminder to all companies that self-reporting misconduct to the UK authorities does not guarantee that a company will not be prosecuted for that misconduct.
Even if a company fully investigates allegations of misconduct, self-reports to the authorities, and co-operates fully with any ensuing investigation, the UK authorities may still determine that the company and/or any culpable individuals should be prosecuted. The case also provides insight into what factors may and may not be taken into account by a jury when considering whether anti-bribery procedures are adequate or not.< https://www.sfo.gov.uk/publications/guidance-policy-and-protocols/corporate-self-reporting/
Loading...