Corruption, scandal and bribery - What action is being taken to eradicate these crimes? And what can treasurers do to avoid them

Aug 27, 2026

Corruption, scandal, and bribery are examined through real cases that show how attitudes have shifted over time, from cover-ups in 1970s Britain to stronger enforcement in later decades. The text traces legislative turning points including the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the UK Bribery Act 2011, explaining liability for offenses by intermediaries and the role of adequate anti-bribery procedures. It summarizes enforcement outcomes, business impacts, and risk patterns across sectors, supported by OECD and UN definitions.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages4

Reading Time10 min

AccessFree to download

Crackdown on corruption

From 1970s cover-ups to legislative change

The US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

The UK Bribery Act 2011 and its reach

Facilitation payments and corporate liability

Enforcement, convictions, and sector risk patterns

INSIGHT CLEANING UP Corruption, scandal and bribery are commonplace in the world, but what action is being taken to eradicate these crimes? And what can treasurers do to avoid them? Ian Fraser reports In September 1977, Sir Richard Dobson made some off-the-cuff remarks he would come to regret. In an after-dinner speech, the British Leyland chairman dismissed allegations that the state-owned car manufacturer was running a slush fund to bribe overseas officials as a case of accusing the company of a perfectly reasonable and even ‘respectable’ practice. It later transpired the allegations were true. British Leyland was handing £4.2ma year – the equivalent of £20m intoday’s money – in kickbacks to officials to secure sales of buses and Land Rovers in the Gulf States, Iran, Libya, Nigeria, Sudan and Turkey. But in 1970s Britain, the scandal benefited from a full-establishment cover-up and was never investigated. Dobson, however, fell on his sword the following month. The story illustrates the extent to which attitudes to bribery and corruption have changed.“In the 1970s, bribery wasn’t really seen as problematic – it just wasn’t the sort of thing that decent chaps talked about,” says John Grout, policy and technical director atthe ACT, who started his career at the car giant seven years earlier.“The world has moved on enormously.” The US was quicker to turn the tables. In the year of Dobson’s unspeakable remarks, President Jimmy Carter signed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act into law. This was America’s response to major bribery scandals involving the US firms Lockheed – which was paying $20m a year in bribes to governments around the world to secure defence contracts – and the banana importer United Brands – which, in a scandal that led to the suicide of its chairman in New York and a coup in Tegucigalpa, had handed Honduras’s military ruler, Oswaldo López Arellano, $2.5m in bribes to get taxes lowered. Crackdown on corruption In Europe, change took longer. A blind eye was for many years turned to graft by ‘strategic’ players such as defence manufacturers, including BAE Systems. In parts of Europe, bribes were even tax deductible. It wasn’t until the late 2000s that Britain got its anti-bribery act together. Following international pressure from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and others, the country’s previous anti-corruption legislation, a mishmash of dusty statutesand common law, was replaced with the Bribery Act in July 2011. The Act – wider ranging and more draconian than the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)– served as a massive wake-up call for businesses operating internationally and spawned an industry of consultancy and compliance, which, arguably, has a vested interest in hyping its dangers. But Jake Storey, vice chairman of the Maritime Anti-Corruption Network (MACN), says “the act has focused people’s minds like they were never focused before”. Rather than focus solely on bribes paid to foreign officials and state-owned enterprises, the Act encompasses all types of business transaction. It makes UK-based firms liable to prosecution no matter where offences occur. And, unlike the FCPA, the Act treats ‘facilitation payments’ as an offence. Smaller than bribes, these are often made to ease and accelerate public-sector procedures that would have happened anyway. However, the Bribery Act’s most disconcerting aspect for UK firms is that it leaves them open to prosecution for acts of bribery they do not commit, but which are committed on their behalf by IKON IMAGES/OTTO DETTMER “In the 1970s, bribery wasn’t really seen as problematic – it just wasn’t the sort of thing that decent chaps talked about” 22 [The Treasurer](The Treasurer October 2015 www.treasurers.org/thetreasurer)[ October 2015](The Treasurer October 2015 www.treasurers.org/thetreasurer)[ www.treasurers.org/thetreasurer](The Treasurer October 2015 www.treasurers.org/thetreasurer) intermediarie

FAQs

What does the text say about corruption definitions and what it includes?

It cites the UN definition of corruption as misuse of a public or private position for direct or indirect personal gain. It notes that corruption can include acts of bribery and other related misconduct.

How did the US respond to major bribery scandals?

The text explains that President Jimmy Carter signed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act into law, targeting bribery practices linked to major international scandals involving US firms.

Why is the UK Bribery Act especially concerning for UK firms?

The text states that firms can be prosecuted for bribery committed on their behalf by intermediaries, and their main defense is showing they have adequate anti-bribery procedures in place.

Aug 27, 2026

Upload by Callum