The legal framework to protect the anti-bribery law of Australia is segmented into sections

Home, - The Legal Framework To Protect Anti-Bribery Law Of Australia

The Legal Framework To Protect Anti-Bribery Law Of Australia

The legal framework to protect the anti-bribery law of Australia is segmented into sections - domestic bribery: legal framework and foreign bribery: legal framework. The framework for domestic bribery law to protect it can be classified by three considerations - it prohibits bribery involving foreign and commonwealth public officials, State Government public officials, and local government public officials. There is no specific private or commercial bribery law in Australia through different state laws which can cover bribery conduct. Section 142 and 141 criminal code takes care of the offenses which are related to domestic bribery regarding Commonwealth public official. The sections look for the offenses to give bribe, receive a bribe, benefit, as well as abuse of public office. It even prohibits receiving and paying bribes as each of five states including 2 territories of Australia secures the bribery act which regulates the conduct of local government as well as state government public officials (Begum, 2020). The framework even confirms the definition for public official which convey that it is wide open to encompass government-owned and controlled companies. In order to protect the anti-bribery law of Australia in the domestic segment, it has even restricted participation of public officials in commercial activities by some regulations as they cannot participate in any activity which can adversely affect independent, honest official functions. They are even expected to disclose personal interests. Finally, the framework talks about the gift, entertainment, meals, and travel restrictions to not breach the Australian public service code of conduct. It depends on the circumstances to be considered a gift or a bribe depending on the conflict of interest.

The legal framework for foreign bribery even has sustained some important consideration in its liability (Islam, Cooper, Haque, & John Jones, 2021). It restricts dealing or proceeding with any crime or instrument of crime, obstruction to justice by Crime Act 1914, use of the public fund for corruption or bribery for improper dealing of public money through Financial Management And Accountability Act 1997 as well as Commonwealth Authority And Companies Act 1997 along with liability to breach of duty by the officer as per Corporation Act 2001. The framework provides reason to benefit another person. However, it restricts any sort of benefit for public officials exceeding the stated range. As benefit can be symbolized as broad in nature including advantage thereby the framework particularly points out do's and don'ts to protect the anti-bribery law. It has even amended section 11.2 of the criminal code to include knowing the concerned under the segment of liability to restrict bribery. The framework gets reformed in 2019 to make it more effective for protecting the anti-bribery law of Australia through several amendments. The amendments carry repelling of existing section 70.2 foreign bribery offense, creation of new foreign bribery offense, replacement of the concept of nonlegitimate and clear conception about prosecution need. It has even defined for public officials of entertainment, travel that restricts gift by section 70.1 of criminal code (Tomasic, 2018). The clarification confirms specific aspects to call it a gift, or bribery. It would consider if the payment is reasonable by the circumstances if the payment is proportionate for clearly identified business purpose, the documentation process of the payment, the frequency and amount of the payment, and finally the motive of giving the payment, gift, or offering hospitality. The legal framework of foreign bribery to protect anti-bribery law in Australia is more clear and effective to serve the purpose compared to the domestic bribery legal framework.

Corruption and Bribery in Banking & Financial Services

Corruption is as much a part of some cultures as their language and religion. Corruption can be obvious or secretive; it can be harmful or helpful. It can be large or small, taking place at the highest or the lowest levels. But corruption has always existed and probably always will exist. Corruption can take many different forms, including nepotism, collusion, and stealing. Corruption is a widely used term that can refer to a myriad of things depending on the context. Corruption is the use of public or private positions for personal advantage. Economic corruption occurs when government or company leaders exploit their positions of authority to obtain or accept bribes from the private sector. Political corruption involves the buying of votes, illicit influence, or campaign contributions.

Similarly, bribery is when someone takes advantage of or abuses a position of trust or power in exchange for anything of value. Many studies employ the term "corruption" rather than "bribery" since the literature on corruption and bribery conflates the two concepts. (Nichols, 2012)


Banks, as the oldest of the financial-service professions, are responsible for a variety of critical economic functions. They convert deposits, mostly from homes, into loans for individuals, corporations, and the government. These financial operations are critical to the smooth operation of the financial system and the economy.

The stability of the banking system is therefore a precondition for economic stability and a basis for sustained growth. (Hanh, 2015)

Corruption in the banking industry may ultimately hinder efficient capital allocation and undermine economic growth. For example, corruption on the part of bank officials may decrease bank lending through the additional amounts claimed by corrupt bankers for granting credit; amounts that act as extra costs for borrowers. Thus, borrowers without connections may assign valuable funds to establish political links, while connected ones with easy access to bank credit are less likely to invest funds efficiently (Houston et al., 2011). 

Financial institutions are more subject to ethical violations and corruption than any other industry. The rapid convergence of all financial services industries into each other's territory. A huge number of mergers, acquisitions, and consolidations resulting in the elimination of many hundreds of banks, brokerage, and insurance firms are some of the factors that affect unethical behaviour. (Aktan, Masood & Yilmaz, 2009)

Bribery breaches the "required social efficiency" hyper-norm, according to Donaldson and Dunfee. Andrew Spicer proposes that even if a hyper-norm prohibiting bribery is set aside, local communities retain a higher aspirational norm condemning corruption. Businesspeople should not pay bribes, according to social contractarianism. (Nichols, 2012)

For instance, the incentive to give bribes increases for borrowers whose loan applications are more likely to be rejected when banks are highly risk-averse and unwilling to grant credit. When banks' risk aversion increases, the incentives to obtain loans through bribes will increase as well. (Hanh, 2015) 

When looking at both the supply and the demand sides of bank funding and corruption. On the supply side, theory shows that corrupt bankers might accept bribes in exchange for dealing favourably with high-risk loan applications. On the demand side, corrupt defaulters might give bribes to lessen their penalties, hence increasing the likelihood of loan defaults. (Goel and Hasan, 2011, p. 456)

Nichols (2012) believes that rather than evaluating its impacts statically, one should evaluate them dynamically. Much of the previous "grease money" literature claimed that in an overly bureaucratized system, corruption allowed businesses to avoid bureaucracy, lowering costs.

When looking at corruption and politics, corruption scandals have recently brought down governments in both developed and underdeveloped countries. 

A recent high profile bribery case took place in Germany, Deutsche Bank for example. According to "The New York Times ", the investigation by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission found that Deutsche Bank had made about $7 million in improper payments to foreign fixers between 2009 and 2016, earning about $35 million from the deals that resulted.

Khwaja and Mian (2005) have also found that politically connected firms, whose managers are involved in politics and with elections, receive considerable preferential treatment in bank funding. Even though they have a considerably higher than average default rate, politically connected firms may receive far larger loans.

Corruption in bank lending may also arise when politicians use their power to induce banks' officials to divert the flow of funds to borrowers connected with them, to maximize their own political gain rather than the goodwill of the nation (Beck et al., 2006). This is particularly the case when banks are state-owned. This can lead to greater funding being directed to politically desirable projects, thus maximizing the private gain of politicians rather than maximising social welfare (La Porta et al., 2002).

According to all the authors from the literature reviews, there is a common belief that corruption exists in all organizations whether it is small or big. Most of the reviewed information discussed in this paper takes account of the interactions between different financial firms and governments. (Nichols, 2012) Corruption indices are the most prevalent measurements of corruption. They are determined by polling businesspeople and citizens regarding corruption. These evaluations are based on the findings of a global network of experts. This information is, however, subjective. There are numerous options to measure corruption.


Leave a comment


Related :-