Further to Professor Alldridge's 'Caffeinated' Article: What 'Stuff' Did the Professor Have in Mind?
Bruce W. Bean
Michigan State University - College of Law
December 3, 2012
Ohio State Law Journal Furthermore, Vol. 73, p. 77, 2012
MSU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-27
Professor Peter Alldridge has published The U.K. Bribery Act: “The Caffeinated Younger Sibling of the FCPA,” in the Ohio State Law Journal. He deals with the extraordinary thirteen-year process that finally resulted in the U.K. Bribery Act 2010. Alldridge explains that the “highly politicised” nature of the process accounted for much of the delay.
In this brief Essay, I focus on what actually moved Parliament to act. While the Professor refers to “political happenstance” and explains that sometimes “Stuff, as Mr Rumsfeld reminded us, happens,” Alldridge does not explain any of this Rumsfeldian “stuff”.
After setting out the most significant provision of the Bribery Act, its strict liability corporate crime of failing to prevent a bribe, I utilize the legislative history of the Bribery Act to elaborate on how certain embarrassing events in Britain constituted the “stuff” that led to the elimination of the U.K.’s long-standing forgiving attitude toward overseas bribery.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 13
Keywords: Bribery, Corruption, FCPA, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Bribery Act, BAE Systems, Al Yamamah, Alldridge, Alderman, SFO, Serious Fraud Office, corporate crime, strict liability, adequate procedures, foreign official, facilitation, hospitality, Rotten Parliament
Date posted: December 4, 2012