Adequate procedures meaning

A UK accountancy practice’s imminent prosecution for failing to stop tax evasion has thrown a spotlight on the country’s weak track record on enforcement, across this area of compliance, though the proceedings may galvanise a renewed push. Bennett Verby, which operates in northern England, is due to stand trial in September 2027, marking the first corporate case for failing to prevent tax evasion since the offence reached the statute book eight years ago. HMRC, the UK tax authority, has recently charged Bennett Verby with failing to prevent the facilitation of UK tax evasion under section 45 of the Criminal Finances Act 2017. Company representatives appeared before a Manchester court earlier this month. No plea has been entered yet, but the firm will reportedly contest the claims. The failure to prevent tax evasion offence was enacted with fanfare eight years ago, in the wake of the 2016 Panama Papers offshore finance scandal and the preceding Swiss Leaks revelations a year earlier, which alleged that companies had assisted wealthy individuals to avoid...

In this issue: Medical devices Commercialisation Pharmaceuticals—regulatory framework Research and development Advertising of medicines Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Trackers Useful information Medical devices Digital Omnibus on AI Regulation—considerations for life sciences companies The European Commission has unveiled its Digital Omnibus on AI Regulation Proposal, a draft law with targeted measures aimed at smoothing the practical roll-out of the EU AI Act. Hélène Boland and Fabien Roy of Hogan Lovells set out key points for life sciences companies. See News Analysis: Digital Omnibus on AI Regulation—considerations for life sciences companies. EU countries question proposed approach for delaying AI Act’s key duties MLex reports that plans to postpone core EU AI Act obligations face scrutiny from Member States, who caution that the Commission’s method lacks clear benchmarks, predictability and adequate participation of national regulators. Even backers of a pause voiced reservations, and others queried what ensues if compliance tools...

The SFO has charged United Insurance Brokers with failing to prevent its associates from paying bribes in Ecuador—the first time the agency is preparing to go to trial over the adequacy of a company's compliance programmes. Experts say the case also signals—amid debate over the SFO’s priorities and doubts about the near‑term trajectory of international corruption inquiries—that the agency remains firmly engaged in tackling bribery at home and abroad today. Jonah Anderson, a partner at White & Case LLP, noted that although there now appear to be fewer bribery prosecutions than five or ten years ago and the global environment is shifting, the SFO continues to act as a vigorous corporate bribery enforcer. The UK’s anti‑bribery regime renders companies criminally responsible if they fail to stop employees or associated persons from making illicit payments to secure business in the UK or anywhere in the world. Since its introduction, the Bribery Act 2010 (BA 2010) has been deployed on multiple occasions to allege that major corporations have not done enough...

The Bribery Act 2010 (BA 2010) Enacted to secure the UK’s adherence to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, the Bribery Act 2010 (BA 2010) delivers an effective framework to address corruption across public and private spheres, updating the UK’s anti-corruption regime and supplanting Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 and Prevention of Corruption Act 1916. BA 2010 carries significant consequences for any company incorporated in, or trading from, the UK. Its global reach covers bribery undertaken by a business, or by third parties acting for it, regardless of where in the world the conduct occurs...

Section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010 (BA 2010) introduced a corporate criminal offence of failing to prevent bribery. A defence is available where a commercial organisation can show it had adequate procedures in place to prevent it. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has published guidance on the procedures organisations should adopt to prevent bribery, framed around six principles. These principles are not prescriptive; they are designed to be flexible and outcome-focused. Bribery prevention measures should be proportionate to the organisation’s risk exposure. Once established, they should be monitored, reviewed and evaluated, a point reinforced by MoJ principle 6—Monitoring and review. This How to guide sets out some of the ways organisations can monitor, review and evaluate their anti-bribery and corruption procedures. Importance of monitoring systems Effective monitoring and review are vital to the long-term sustainability of an organisation’s anti-bribery and corruption programme and to its capacity to demonstrate adequate operating procedures. Principle 6 of the MoJ guidance provides that organisations should monitor and review procedures intended to...

You have a duty to supply suitable and sufficient equipment, facilities and competent personnel so employees receive immediate attention if they are hurt or become unwell in the workplace. There is no fixed rulebook setting out the precise first aid arrangements you must implement; requirements vary with context. What you establish should be suited to your organisation's circumstances. Smaller organisations may only need the minimum first aid provision, while larger organisations, or those with specific first aid risks, often require additional resources and coverage. Consequently, provision should increase where risks or scale dictate. This Practice Note explains how to manage and secure effective first aid provision across your workplace. For material on the regulatory requirements relating to first aid, see Practice Note: First aid in the workplace—regulatory requirements. First aid needs assessment You should already have completed a first aid needs assessment—see Precedents: First aid needs assessment and First aid provision management lifecycle. The outcome of that assessment will help you allocate adequate first...

The Schedule 1 Definitions 1.1 In this Schedule: Adequate Procedures – must be interpreted in line with BA 2010 and any guidance issued under it; Associated Person – means any or all of: (a) the officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, subsidiaries, and individuals Associated With a party (Associates); and (b) persons Associated With any of those Associates, in every instance engaged in carrying out services for, or on behalf of, that party, the Services, and/or this Agreement; and Associated With – where used: (a) in paragraph 2 and in relation to bribery, is to be construed in accordance with BA 2010 and guidance issued under it; (b) in paragraph 4 and regarding the facilitation of tax evasion, is to be construed in accordance with Part 3 of CFA 2017 and guidance issued under it; (c) in paragraph 5 and as regards fraud, is to be construed in accordance with Part 5 of ECCTA 2023 and guidance issued under it; BA 2010 – means the...

1 Definitions and interpretation 1.1 Within these Conditions, the terms below shall have the following meanings: Adequate Procedures – to be interpreted in accordance with BA 2010 and the guidance issued under it; Affiliate – any entity that, directly or indirectly, Controls, is Controlled by, or is under common Control with, another entity; Applicable Law – all applicable laws, legislation, statutory instruments, regulations, and governmental guidance having binding effect, whether local or national [ or international in any relevant jurisdiction ]; Associated Person – means any or all of: (a) a party’s officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, subsidiaries, and persons Associated With that party (the Associates); and (b) persons Associated With any of the Associates, in each case engaged in performing services for or on behalf of that party, the Services and/or the Contract; Associated With – when used: (a) in clause 10 and in respect of bribery, shall be read in accordance with BA 2010 and the guidance published under it; (b)...

1 Definitions and interpretation These Conditions define key terms and set the rules for reading the Contract. Defined expressions include (among others) Acceptance Conditions, Adequate Procedures, Affiliate, Applicable Law, Associated With, BA 2010, Bribery Laws, Business Day, CFA 2017, Conditions, Confidential Information, Contract, Control, ECCTA 2023, Force Majeure, Foreign Tax Evasion Offence, Fraud Offence, Goods, Intellectual Property Rights, IPR Claim, Location, MSA 2015, MSA Offence, Order, Prevention Procedures, Price, Services, Specification, Supplier, Supplier Associated Person, Supplier Personnel, UK Tax Evasion Offence and VAT. References to the Contract include these Conditions, the Order and any schedules, appendices and annexes. Headings are for convenience only and do not affect interpretation. “Party” means the Supplier or the Customer and includes successors and permitted assigns; “person” includes natural and corporate bodies; “company” covers any body corporate. Gender includes all genders; singular includes plural and vice versa. Terms such as “including” and similar are illustrative and not limiting. “Writing” or “written” covers legible, non‑transitory forms. ...

Section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010 (BA 2010) provides: (1) A relevant commercial organisation (“C”) is guilty of an offence under this section if a person (“A”) associated with C offers a bribe to another person with the intention of: (a) securing or retaining business for C; or (b) securing or retaining an advantage in the conduct of C’s business. (2) However, it is a defence for C to prove that it had in place adequate procedures devised to prevent persons associated with C from carrying out such conduct. BA 2010, s 8 defines an associated person: (1) For the purposes of section 7, a person (“A”) is associated with C if (disregarding any bribe under consideration) A is a person who performs services for or on behalf of C. (2) The capacity in which A performs services for or on behalf of C does not matter. (3) Accordingly A may (for example) be C’s...