UK Bribery Act – Ready or Not, Here It Comes
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.30.11
The much-discussed and long-awaited United Kingdom Bribery Act became effective on 1 July 2011. Perhaps the world's most aggressive anti-corruption legislation, the Act will have far-reaching implications, both for individuals and entities who have a close connection to the UK or do business in the UK, regardless of whether the individual or entity is domiciled in the UK. The Act substantially revises the existing UK framework for combating bribery in the public and private sectors. Importantly, the Act holds entities strictly liable for failing to prevent the payment of bribes on their behalf. Significantly though, the Act provides a safe harbor from criminal liability for companies that have in place "adequate procedures" to prevent bribery.
Who is covered?
- Any person (individual or entity) who has a "close connection" with the UK;
- Any entity that has operations in the UK, with respect to bribery that has taken place anywhere in the world.
What is covered?
- Giving a bribe;
- Receiving a bribe;
- Bribery of a foreign public official in order to obtain or retain business;
- Failing to prevent bribery on behalf of a commercial entity.
What is at stake?
- Individuals face up to 10 years imprisonment;
- Entities are exposed to unlimited fines.
While many entities already have policies and procedures in place for compliance with the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA"), those procedures are not necessarily sufficient to ensure compliance with the UK Bribery Act. The Bribery Act covers a broader range of conduct than the FCPA. For example, as noted above, the Bribery Act prescribes strict liability for any bribery that occurs on behalf of a company and provides no exception for facilitation payments. The Bribery Act provides, however, a safe harbor defense if the company can show it had "adequate procedures" in place to prevent its employees, agents and contractors from paying bribes. Companies should promptly undertake a risk assessment of their potential exposure to both the Bribery Act and the FCPA. A thorough review and revision of internal policies, training materials, and due diligence procedures is necessary as enforcement authorities will undoubtedly be looking for more than fig-leaf showings of compliance.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
