The UK's Bribery Act and the FCPA Compared
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
VOL. 25 NO. 1 FALL 2010 The UK’s Bribery Act and Pricing Processing in the FCPA Compared E-Discovery: Keep the By Richard C. Rosalez, Weston C. Loegering, Invoice from Being a Surprise and Harriet Territt By Seth Eichenholtz, Esq. fter much deliberation, the United Kingdom’s (UK) -discovery continues to confound law firms and clients Bribery Bill received Royal Assent on April 8, 2010, and with a lack of consistency in pricing. This lack of con- A became the Bribery Act. Now set to become effective Esistency may have many reasons, likely due to various in April 2011, the Bribery Act is the UK’s effort to modernize vendors having very different internal costs owing to the wide its anti-corruption laws and potentially take a lead role along- range of core competencies and services that vendors in the side, if not an outright attempt to step ahead of, enforcement e-discovery space purport to offer. But perhaps the most criti- efforts of the United States.1 The Bribery Act is far reaching cal reason for the lack of consistency in pricing is that vendors and signals a significant shift in the criminalization of corrup- have been able to take advantage of the fact that both law firms tion as another major economic power seeks to police graft and clients are all over the map in defining specifically what around the world. “processing” means in the e-discovery lexicon. Processing data in e-discovery means different things to different people and Background pricing for processing has followed suit. The previous statutory criminal law of bribery was “functional,” Of all the major hurdles in any e-discovery engagement, but “old and anachronistic” with “inconsistencies of language perhaps the biggest challenge is being able to foresee the costs and concepts” resulting in a bribery law, which was “difficult to of processing the data. Processing can also become the most understand for the public and difficult to apply for prosecutors expensive component of litigation, short of a long and drawn- and the courts.” The foreword to the Bribery Bill noted the UK’s out document review. The reason for this is that there has been reputation as “one of the least corrupt countries in the world” no uniformity amongst e-discovery vendors regarding how to as well as the perils of bribery: “Bribery is by its nature insidi- categorize the various elements and issues inherent in process- ous; if it is not kept in check it will have potentially devastating ing data in e-discovery nor what those costs should be. And it consequences.”2 The UK has long been a party to international is very easy to envision a case with current market processing treaties that combat corruption and emphasize the seriousness costs where the processing costs alone can quickly reach six- of the problems that corruption poses, such as the United Nations figure sums. So to the extent that one can police, lower, and Convention Against Corruption, the Organization of Economic perhaps best of all, predict that pricing, this is a critical issue (Continued on page 13) (Continued on page 18) Highlights Third-Party Financing of Commercial Litigation, Part Two By Holly E. Loiseau, Eric C. Lyttle, and Brianna N. Benfield .......................................................................................................................................3 Jurors’ Perceptions of Ethnic Minority Attorneys: Are We in a Post-Racial Era? By Mark R. Phillips Ph.D. .............................................................................................................................................................................................8 Practice Tip Jean Walker Tucker ....................................................................................................................................................................................................19 The In-House Litigator Spotlight: Cathy Lamboley’s Five Keys to Success By Haley Maple and Jacqueline Taylor ........................................................................................................................................................................22 Published by the American Bar Association Section of Litigation • 321 N. Clark Street • Chicago, IL 60654 THE UK’S BRIbeRY ACT AND THE FCPA COmpARED (Continued from page 1) Cooperation and Development (the OECD) Anti-Bribery Convention, and the Council Bribery Act Basics of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption. However, the UK’s patchwork The Bribery Act is noteworthy and even groundbreaking in a number of respects. of antiquated legislation simply did not First, the Bribery Act crimianalizes private, commercial bribery. Second, it states reflect the modern commercial world. This, that it is a crime to accept a bribe—extending beyond the traditional anti-bribery paradigm—by targeting the bribed in addition to the briber. Third, it prohibits brib- together with a number of failed prosecu- ery of foreign public officials, akin to the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices tions and the high-profile discontinuance of Act (FCPA). For commercial bribery, paying or receiving bribes is illegal when there an investigation into a British corporation’s is an intention that it induces or rewards for “improper performance.” There is no dealings in the Middle East, led the OECD intent requirement for bribery of foreign officials; any attempt to influence the offi- to openly criticize the UK for its failure to cial is prohibited. As a result, the Bribery Act covers an extensive amount of exist- bring its anti-bribery laws into line with its ing business practices as any payment, gift, or benefit that may be categorized as a international obligations. Clearly, there was bribe. need for reform. The Act also establishes strict liability for corporations for failing to prevent acts of According to the UK’s Ministry of bribery unless a corporation can demonstrate that it had “adequate procedures [to Justice, “[t]he Bribery Act reforms the prevent bribery]” in place. Effective implementation and regular review of corpo- criminal law to provide a new, modern and rate compliance programs is essential as a result. Equally important, counsel should comprehensive scheme of bribery offenses understand the scope of the Bribery Act’s territorial reach. The provisions vary as to to equip prosecutors and courts to deal how they apply to conduct in the UK or those doing business in the UK. effectively with bribery at home or abroad.”3 Further, the Bribery Act will “provide a more conduct in the UK or relatively strong Requesting, Agreeing to Receive, or effective legal framework to combat bribery ties to the UK. Specifically, the three Accepting a Bribe in the public or private sectors,” “replace the general offenses apply (a) if any Section 2 of the Bribery Act criminalizes fragmented and complex offences at com- parts of the acts or omissions take the acceptance of a bribe. Specifically, it is mon law and in the Prevention of Corruption place in the UK, or (b) if any person a violation where a person “requests, agrees Act 1889–1916,” and “help tackle the threat committing the act or omission has a to receive or accepts a financial or other that bribery poses to economic progress and “close connection” with the UK. The advantage . .” development around the world.” Act generally defines those with a The British government’s goals for the “close connection” as British citizens, • “intending that . a relevant func- impact of the new law are admirable, but residents of the UK, and companies tion or activity should be performed surely, government officials also recognized incorporated in the UK.4 improperly” the growing trend of American authorities • “the request, agreement or acceptance extracting significant fines from corpora- Offering, Promising or Giving a itself constitutes the improper perfor- tions for corruption around the globe. Many Bribe mance . of a relevant function or of these corporations also do business in Section 1 of the Bribery Act pro- activity” the UK, and penalties have been levied hibits commercial bribery. The Act • “as a reward for the improper perfor- against British corporations and executives. proscribes conduct where a person mance . of a relevant function or It is not difficult to imagine officials in “offers, promises or gives a financial activity” the UK government appreciating that they or other advantage to another” (includ- could continue to cooperate with American ing through a third party) and • “in anticipation of” the person “requesting, agreeing to receive or enforcement efforts or engage in the pro- accepting a financial or other advan- cess more fully by modernizing the UK’s • the person “intends the advan- tage, a relevant function or activity is anti-bribery laws and advancing the goals tage to induce a person to performed improperly”6 of such laws through promotion of an anti- perform improperly a relevant corruption agenda, all while collecting hefty function or activity, or to reward Section 2 also covers scenarios where sums through fines and confiscation orders a person for the improper per- the person “requests, agrees to receive against those guilty of bribery in the public formance of such a function or or accepts . the advantage directly or and private sector. activity” through a third party” and where the advan- • the person “knows or believes tage benefits the person or another. Key Provisions of the Bribery Act that the acceptance of the advan- There are three general offenses and one tage would itself constitute