Regulatory regime

The Bribery Act 2010 (BA 2010) applies to any business that is incorporated or trades in the UK. It covers bribery committed by the organisation, or on its behalf, anywhere in the world. This subtopic sets out the regulatory regime relating to anti-bribery and corruption.

The law

BA 2010 contains four offences:

  1. bribing another person

  2. soliciting or accepting a bribe

  3. bribing a foreign public official

  4. (for a business) failing to prevent bribery

Common to each of these is that:

  1. an advantage is given, promised or requested, and

  2. a function or activity is performed improperly

Bribing another person

This offence occurs when A offers or gives to B an advantage:

  1. intending to bring about or reward improper performance of a relevant function or activity, or

  2. where A knows or believes that B's accepting the advantage would itself constitute improper performance of a relevant function or activity

In this respect:

  1. it does not matter whether the advantage is offered or given to the person performing the activity and whether it is offered directly or indirectly

  2. a

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Risk & Compliance News

Data by any other name—Court of Appeal reverses Upper Tribunal’s ruling on the protection of ‘personal data’ (DSG v ICO)

Information Law analysis: In this case, the Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal brought by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), holding that it is sufficient that data which has been subjected to unauthorised or unlawful processing by a third party still constitutes personal data from the perspective of the data controller, even if it is pseudonymised ‘in the hands of’ the data controller and therefore anonymised ‘in the hands of’ the attacker. Accordingly, the court held, the data controller is required to take ‘appropriate technical and organisational measures’ (ATOMs) to protect that personal data against such hackers, even where those third parties cannot themselves identify the individuals to whom the data relates. Even though this judgment is under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998), this decision is significant as it confirms, in terms equally applicable to the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK GDPR), that the scope of the security obligation is not diminished merely because stolen or exfiltrated data would be anonymised in the hands of the third party with unlawful access. This development expands and makes more pressing the obligation on controllers to assess and guard against a broader range of threats—including ransomware, data destruction, and bulk exfiltration, regardless of the attacker's capacity to re-identify data subjects. Written by Adelaide Lopez, senior associate at Wiggin LLP.

View Risk & Compliance by content type :

Popular documents