Kent Police - Gifts and Hospitality

[Dedworth]

Interesting in an odd way - they are obviously covering themselves by recording every little gift. I wonder if the Met Police do similar :icon_lol:

eg the last entry

Woman attended front counter with 2 young
children. One of the children handed over box
of biscuits and said, "Merry Christmas!".
Woman offered thanks and all left.

http://www.kent.police.uk/about_us/our_organisation/chief_officer_biogs/expenses/attachments/gifts_hospitality_reg_2011.pdf

[RickyR]

My present job is effectively a public sector role and we have all these systems for anti corruption and recording gifts. It must cost us a fortune having so many people to audit the accounts and approve the purchase of anything from a pencil upwards...
I imagine its the same in the police.

[Dedworth]

My present job is effectively a public sector role and we have all these systems for anti corruption and recording gifts. It must cost us a fortune having so many people to audit the accounts and approve the purchase of anything from a pencil upwards...
I imagine its the same in the police.

Where you are Ricky the penalty may well be be a one way trip to Chop Square - this fella got away by resigning :-

The communications chief at the Metropolitan Police, Dick Fedorcio, has resigned after proceedings for gross misconduct were started against him.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission launched an inquiry last year after it emerged he had given work to a PR firm run by ex-News of the World deputy editor Neil Wallis.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17548876

[Rosie1958]

For those that are not aware, the Bribery Act 2010 came into force on 1 July 2011. It amends and reforms the UK criminal law and provides a modern legal framework to combat bribery in the UK and internationally.

The Bribery Act 2010, attracted strong cross party support in Parliament and received Royal Assent on 8 April 2010. Section 9 of the Act requires the Government to publish guidance on procedures that commercial organisations can put in place to prevent bribery on their behalf. All organisations must comply with the Act and have a policy and procedures in place to combat anti- bribery and must train/ brief their employees, it's not just the Police. There are penalties for organisations and also individuals that fail to comply with the law on Bribery

Foreign bribery has been illegal for many years, with a number of individuals and companies having been convicted under the current law.


The Bribery Act creates the following offences:

1.Active bribery: promising or giving a financial or other advantage.
2.Passive bribery: agreeing to receive or accepting a financial or other advantage.
3.Bribery of foreign public officials.
4.The failure of commercial organisations to prevent bribery by an associated person (corporate offence).

Penalty

Under the current law imprisonment for up to seven years with unlimited fine will increase under the Bribery Act to a maximum of 10 years imprisonment.

Jurisdiction

The scope of the law is extra-territorial. Under the Bribery Act, a relevant person or company can be prosecuted for the above crimes if the crimes are committed abroad.

Application

The Bribery Act applies to UK citizens, residents and companies established under UK law. In addition, non-UK companies can be held liable for a failure to prevent bribery if they do business in the UK.

Liability

Companies can be liable for bribery committed for their benefit by their employees or other associated persons.

Culpability

A company or corporate entity is culpable for board-level complicity in bribery, including bribery through intermediaries. There is also personal liability for senior company officers that turn a blind eye to such board-level bribery.

In addition, a company or corporate entity is culpable for bribes given to a third party with the intention of obtaining or retaining business for the organisation or obtaining or retaining an advantage useful to the conduct of the business by their employees and associated persons, even if they had no knowledge of those actions. The company can invoke in its defence that it ‘had in place adequate procedures designed to prevent persons associated [with the company] from undertaking such conduct’.