2010年贈収賄法

同法の第1条から第5条は「一般的な贈収賄罪」を扱っている。贈収賄罪は、第1条において、ある人物が「関連する職務または活動」を「不適切に」遂行する見返りに、別の人物に「金銭的またはその他の利益」を提供、供与、または供与を約束した場合に成立すると規定されている。第2条は、贈収賄罪を扱っており、これは、そのような職務または活動を不適切に遂行する見返りに、そのような利益を要求、受領、または受領に同意することを規定している。「金銭的またはその他の利益」は同法では定義されていないが、スコッツ・ロー・タイムズ紙のアイシャ・アンワル氏とギャビン・ディープローズ氏によれば、「契約、金銭以外の贈与、雇用の申し出などが含まれる可能性がある」という。^{[ 5 ]}「関連する機能または活動」の要素は第 3 節で説明されています。これは、「公的な性質を持つあらゆる機能、ビジネス、貿易、または職業に関連するあらゆる活動、個人の雇用の過程で行われるあらゆる活動、または法人か非法人かを問わず、団体によってまたは団体を代表して行われるあらゆる活動」を対象としています。これは民間産業と公共産業の両方に適用され、英国外で行われる活動、さらには英国と何の関連もない活動も含まれます。^{[ 15 ]}付随する条件は、その機能を実行する人が誠実にまたは公平にそれを実行することが期待できること、またはその人の役割に信頼の要素が付随することです。^{[ 16 ]}

Under section 4, the activity will be considered to be "improperly" performed when the expectation of good faith or impartiality has been breached, or when the function has been performed in a way not expected of a person in a position of trust. Section 5 provides that the standard in deciding what would be expected is what a reasonable person in the UK might expect of a person in such a position. Where the breach has occurred in a jurisdiction outside the UK, local practices or customs should be disregarded when deciding this, unless they form part of the "written law" of the jurisdiction; "written law" is given to mean any constitution, statute or judicial opinion set down in writing.^[15] The general offences also cover situations where the mere acceptance of such an advantage would constitute improperly performing relevant functions or activities.^[17]

Bribery of foreign public officials is a distinct crime under section 6, in line with the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.^[18] A person will be guilty of this offence if they promise, offer or give a financial or other advantage to a foreign public official, either directly or through a third party, where such an advantage is not legitimately due. A foreign public official is defined, under section 6(4), as "an individual holding legislative, administrative or judicial posts or anyone carrying out a public function for a foreign country or the country's public agencies or an official or agent of a public international organisation". The inclusion of "through a third party" is intended to prevent the use of go-betweens to avoid committing a crime, although if the written law of the country of the foreign public official allows or requires the official to accept the advantage offered, no crime will be committed.^[19] Unlike with general bribery offences, there is no requirement to show that the public official acted improperly as a result; this is a distinction between the act and the Anti-Bribery Convention. The offence under section 6 only applies to the briber, and not to the official who receives or agrees to receive such a bribe.^[20]

Section 7 creates the "broad and innovatory offence" of the failure of commercial organisations to prevent bribery on their behalf. This applies to all commercial organisations which have business in the UK. Unlike corporate manslaughter, this does not only apply to the organisation itself; individuals and employees may also be found guilty.^[21] The offence is one of strict liability, with no need to prove any kind of intention or positive action.^[22] It is also one of vicarious liability; a commercial organisation can be guilty of the offence if the bribery is carried out by an employee, an agent, a subsidiary, or another third party, as found in section 8. The location of the third party is irrelevant to the prosecution—according to David Aaronberg and Nichola Higgins in the Archbold Review, "therefore, a German business with retail outlets in the UK which pays a bribe in Spain could, in theory at least, face prosecution in the UK". Under section 7(2), the commercial organisation has a defence if it can show that, while bribery did take place, the commercial organisation had in place "adequate procedures designed to prevent persons associated with [the organisation] from undertaking such conduct". Under the act's explanatory notes, the burden of proof in this situation is on the organisation, with the standard of proof being "on the balance of probabilities".^[23] In 2018, a London-based company Skansen Interiors Ltd., who admitted to an incident of bribery, but sought to rely on the "adequate defences" defences, was found not to have put in place sufficient measures to meet the requirements of the act.^[24]

Guidance was published by the Secretary of State for Justice three months before the act came into force.^[25] The guidance sets out six principles to be followed by business. They cover:

1. Proportionate procedures
2. Top-level commitment
3. Risk assessment
4. Due diligence
5. Communication (including training)
6. Monitoring and review

The one firm conclusion to be drawn from the guidance is that every commercial organisation that might be subject to the rigours of the act needs to have a code of conduct in place that appropriately reflects the guidance and to ensure its personnel are fully conversant with the risks and adequately trained. If it is then charged with the offence of failing to prevent bribery, it would be able to show evidence of the 'adequate procedures' which it will need in order to defend itself.

Section 10 requires the authorisation of any prosecution by the director of the appropriate prosecution agency before a case can go ahead; this is a shift from the old regime, which required the consent of the Attorney General for England and Wales.^[26] Section 11 explains the penalties for individuals and companies found guilty of committing a crime. If an individual is found guilty of a bribery offence, tried as a summary offence, he or she may be imprisoned for up to 12 months and fined up to £5,000. Someone found guilty on indictment, however, faces up to 10 years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine.^[27] The crime of a commercial organisation failing to prevent bribery is punishable by an unlimited fine. In addition, a convicted individual or organisation may be subject to a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, while a company director who is convicted may be disqualified under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.^[28]

The scope of the act's provisions is set out in section 12. For someone to fall within the act's purview, he or she must have either committed a crime inside the United Kingdom, or acted outside of the United Kingdom in a way which would have constituted a crime had it happened in the UK. For a prosecution in the latter case, the person must have a "close connection" to the UK, which includes being a British citizen, resident or protected person, a company incorporated in the UK, or a Scottish partnership.^[29] Section 13 provides the only defence available with the general bribery offences—that the conduct was necessary for the proper functioning of the intelligence services or, when engaged in active service, the armed forces.^[19] Under section 14, senior officers or directors in a company which commits a general bribery offence will also be liable for the purposes of the act.^[30] In the case of an offence committed by a partnership, Section 15 provides that the prosecution must be brought in the name of the partnership and not in the name of any of the partners.^[31]

第16条では、この法律は王室の職員に適用され、^{[ 23 ]}第17条では、贈収賄に関する従来のコモンローおよび制定法上の犯罪をすべて廃止し、この法律の規定に置き換えています。^{[ 4 ]}第18条では、この法律はイングランドとウェールズ、スコットランド、北アイルランドに適用されると規定されています。第19条で明確にされているように、通常このような場合にはスコットランド議会の別途の同意が必要ですが、 2010年2月11日に立法同意動議が可決され、スコットランド内でのこの法律の適用が可能になりました。^{[ 23 ]}