The Bribery Act 2010 (the “Act”) came into force on 1st July 2011 and at a stroke instituted probably the most far-reaching corporate anti-corruption regime in the world – on paper at any rate; even the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in the US does not have the global reach that the Act aspires to.

To date, there have been relatively few prosecutions for legislation that is so stringent; although that does not mean that it is toothless.

This has been demonstrated most recently by the case of Sweett Group Plc, which was convicted under section 7 of the Act and fined £2.25 million, making this the first successful prosecution under this section. The conviction related to a former employee of its subsidiary company (Cyril Sweett International Limited) making corrupt payments to secure a contract for construction work in Dubai.

What makes this case even more noteworthy is that Sweett Group was not offered, as previous offenders (notably Smith and Ouzman Ltd, and Standard Bank plc) have been, a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (“DPA”).

Sweett Group failed, under section 7, to show that the company had adequate procedures to prevent bribery in place. KPMG had, on two occasions, advised the company that it did not. Although the offence was serious in itself, the company still might have obtained a DPA had it been more co-operative with the Serious Fraud Office (as Standard Bank had been).

However, the court noted that this had not been the case; not only did the company fail to admit that bribes had been paid, it had even tried to divert the attention of the investigation to the extent of misleading the SFO. As such, it may now be said that, to obtain a DPA, a company will need to co-operate fully and transparently with the authorities.

In short, this successful prosecution demonstrates that section 7 can and will be used, and confirms the global reach of the Act, while providing more guidance around the DPAs.