- This topic has 6 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 3 years ago by
.
- Posts
- Topics: 65
- Replies: 117
- ☆☆
Background
EXL Co is a company which sources designer bathroom products from both UK-based and overseas suppliers. Most of EXL COUs overseas business is carried out by local agents on its behalf. Adam, the managing director of EXL Co, wants to be sure that the company is complying with the requirements of the UK Bribery Act 2010, The following matters have come to his attention and he has asked for your advice
- Topics: 65
- Replies: 117
- ☆☆
Following matter ( part 2)
Ravi, a director of EXL Co was recently invited to an event hosted by a potential supplier, PNK Co. EXL Co is in the process of considering proposals from PNK Co and two other companies and will award a lucrative contract to one of them. During the event, it was announced that Ravi-had won a new car in a free prize draw. An employee of PNK Co joked with Ravi that winning the car should help PNK Co win the EXL Co contract. At the board meeting which followed. Ravi cast his vote in favour of PNK Co being awarded the contract.
- Topics: 65
- Replies: 117
- ☆☆
Part 3
One of the company s agents overseas is making payments to government officials in order to expedite export licences for goods sent to the UK.
Which of the following statements regarding the actions of EXL Co s agent overseas is correct?
1.EXL Co has potentially committed the offence of failure to prevent bribery
2. No offence has been committed by EXL Co, since its contact overseas is an agent and not an employee
3.EXL Co has potentially committed the offence of bribing a foreign public official
4 No offence has been committed by EXL Co, since the events occurred overseas and not in the UK
Ans is 1 why not 3 since he bribed a foreign public officialYou’ve given me no options for part 2 question, so I still cannot help
As for part 3, it wasn’t EXL Co that paid the foreign government official. It was the agent
That payment is certainly contrary to the Bribery Act and is a criminal offence. But it wasn’t EXL Co that committed that offence, so it cannot be option 3
However, EXL Co clearly doesn’t have the company culture to insist that their agents, both ‘at home’ and overseas, are prevented from actions that are in contravention to the Bribery Act
So the company has failed to institute internal controls to prevent such contraventions from taking place and that, too, is a criminal offence
So option 1 is the correct solution
OK?
- Topics: 65
- Replies: 117
- ☆☆
Thank u so much sir ,really appreciate ur efforts to clarify my doubt’s like thank u so much
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.