Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
transparency in both the public and private domains are key concepts in the fight
against bribery, bribe solicitation and extortion'.
Key stakeholders in response to the OECD Convention have acknowledged that
bribery and corruption are significant problems for the construction sector, but have
alsocontendedthat'theissuesstematleastasmuchfromthe“demandside”ofbribery
and corruption as from the “supply side”' (comments from the International Feder-
ation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC) per 'Response to the Consultation Paper on
the Review of the OECD Anti-bribery Instruments'). The International Federation of
Consulting Engineers has levelled criticism at the OECD approach, stating:
Somecasesofbriberyarisefromsimplegreed.Othersoccurbecausesomepublic
servants are placed in positions of authority but are not paid a living wage by their
government in the expectation that they will make their personal income through
bribes. This is deep systemic corruption and the current OECD Convention will
not rectify this problem.
There are currently 40 state party signatories to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention
consisting of 34 OECD members and Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Columbia, Russia
and South Africa. The OECD reports that together, the states parties account for just
under two-thirds of world exports in 2012 and the parties to the Convention also
account for over 70% of global outward flows of foreign direct investment.
22.2 The Bribery Act 2010: The offences
22.2.1 Offence of bribing another person: he briber
The Bribery Act sets out two situations in which a person offering a bribe is guilty of
an offence.
Case 1
is contained in s.1(2) of the Bribery Act: (a) a person offers, promises or
gives a financial or other advantage to another person, and (b) a person intends the
advantage to either induce the improper performance of a relevant function or activ-
ity, or is intended to reward a person for the improper performance of such a function
or activity.
S.1(4) states that in this situation it does not matter whether the person to whom
the advantage is offered, promised or given is the same person as the person who
is to perform, or has performed, the function or activity concerned. It is also does
not matter whether the advantage offered, promised or given by the bribing party is
offered directly or through a third party (s.1(5)).
Case 2
in s.1(3) deals with the scenario where: (a) a person offers, promises or gives
ainancialorotheradvantagetoanotherperson;and(b)thatpersonknowsorbelieves
thattheacceptanceoftheadvantagewoulditselfconstitutetheimproperperformance
of a relevant function or activity.
In this scenario it is also irrelevant whether the advantage offered, promised or
given by the bribing party is offered directly or through a third party (s.1(5)).
