Harwell Ltd, a UK company, engages Marco, a self-employed sales agent, to win contracts for it abroad. Without the knowledge of Harwell's board, Marco pays a bribe to a manager of an overseas customer to secure a contract for Harwell. Harwell Ltd is prosecuted under s7 Bribery Act 2010. Which argument, if proved by Harwell Ltd, provides a defence?

Correct answer: C) It had adequate procedures in place designed to prevent persons associated with it from committing bribery

Explanation

The s7 offence is one of strict liability, so the board's lack of knowledge is no defence. The only defence is for the organisation to prove that it had adequate procedures designed to prevent associated persons from bribing (s7(2)). An associated person is anyone who performs services for or on behalf of the organisation, whatever the capacity, so a self-employed agent is included (s8). Section 7 applies to a relevant commercial organisation even where the bribe is paid abroad by a person with no close connection to the UK (s7(3)).