Navigating international laws and regulations around bribery can be very complex. Cultural customs can sometimes amount to bribery. What may be regarded as perfectly ‘normal’ and acceptable practice in a country can still be considered a bribe, even when a reward or ‘tip’ is expected, and even if everyone does it.

To help in the quest for compliance, VinciWorks has created a country guide to bribery. The guide includes guidance for over 70 countries. For each country, there is a summary of key bribery offences, who it covers, if businesses are required to have procedures in place, hospitality rules, facilitation payments and legal penalties.

We recommend using this guide in risk assessments and country-specific policy development. Risk assessment forms a key part of any anti-bribery and corruption programme and once risks are identified, such as business operations in high-risk jurisdictions, additional measures can be implemented which may, in some jurisdictions, form the basis for a legal defence if any employees or agents engage in bribery.

Download the guide

VinciWorks’ new anti-bribery knowledge check is part of our full anti-bribery learning plan suite. The knowledge checks are short, five minute courses that test a user’s understanding of the key aspects of a topic through interactive questions and scenarios. As well as using our pre-made knowledge checks, you can build your own.

Anti-bribery and corruption laws in the post-Brexit world

The Bribery Act 2010 came into force in July 2011. For UK businesses operating in the emerging and frontier markets its effect was seismic. Organisations were suddenly faced with having to comply with some of the toughest anti-corruption rules in the world. As we approach ten years on, we reflect on some of the key convictions of the last decade.

R v Patel, 2011

This was the first conviction under the Bribery Act. Mr Patel, who worked at Redbridge Magistrates Court, was found guilty of accepting bribes in return for arranging escape from disqualifications, fines or points on their licences for those who came before the Court for driving offences. Mr Patel’s conduct amounted to the systematic perverting of the course of justice including at least 53 cases. It lasted over a year and it netted Mr Patel over £90,000. On appeal, the sentence (which also reflected other offences) was reduced from six to four years’ imprisonment.