BRIBERY LÀ GÌ

  -  

Top Level Commitment

1. Top Level Communication & Culture2. Governance3. Collective kích hoạt và Other Enabling Factors

High Risk Areas

8. Facilitation Payments9. Gifts và Hospitality10. Sponsorship, Donations & Community Investment11. Conflicts of Interest12. Political Engagement
*



*
*
*

Stage 1: Ensure top levelcommitment & oversight Stage 2: Plan, scope & mobiliseStage 3: Gather information Stage 4: Identify the bribery risksStage 5: Evaluate & prioritise the risksStage 6: Use the output of risk assessmenT
5.1 Defining Bribery 5.2 Active sầu và Passive Bribery 5.3 Case Studies 5.3.1 The Deadly consequences of bribery lớn avoid planning and safety rules 5.3.2 Passive sầu Bribery by Bank Employees: Bank’s Customers Robbed of £113 Million 5.3.3 Passive Bribery in a UK Retailer
5.1 Defining Bribery 5.2 Active sầu & Passive Bribery 5.3 Case Studies 5.3.1 The Deadly consequences of bribery to avoid planning and safety rules 5.3.2 Passive sầu Bribery by Bank Employees: Bank’s Customers Robbed of £113 Million 5.3.3 Passive sầu Bribery in a UK Retailer

There is no universal definition of bribery but all definitions have in common that it involves someone in an appointed position acting voluntarily in breach of trust in exchange for a benefit. The benefit does not have sầu to lớn involve sầu cash or a payment exchanging hands. It can take many forms such as lavish gifts, hospitality & expenses, access to lớn assets or a favour made khổng lồ a relative sầu, friend or favoured cause.

Bạn đang xem: Bribery là gì

TI defines bribery as: the offering, promising, giving, accepting or soliciting of an advantage as an inducement for an action which is illegal, unethical or a breach of trust. Inducements can take the khung of money, gifts, loans, fees, rewards or other advantages (taxes, services, donations, favours etc.).


5.2 Active sầu và Passive sầu Bribery


When a person offers, promises or gives a bribe, it is called ‘active bribery’ và when a person requests, receives, or accepts a bribe, it is called ‘passive sầu bribery’. Both forms are of concern to lớn companies and are outlawed in most countries. Until the advent of the UK Bribery Act, the focus of anti-bribery legislation had been on active bribery of foreign public officials as this is the main aremãng cầu for bribery because of the harm it brings to societies và the way it undermines fair trading. For example, the OECD Anti-bribery Convention & the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) address only active bribery.

Examples of active bribery

Bribing a public official in order to:Be awarded a contract in the briber’s favour.Obtain an inspection report or khổng lồ be awarded a license.Channelling bribes lớn win public contracts through a consultant.Payment of small bribes khổng lồ customs officials khổng lồ expedite passage of goods through a port.Employing a public official’s son khổng lồ influence the award of contracts.Providing sponsorship fees và excessive sầu travel expenses for doctors to lớn influence them to prescribe a pharmaceutical company’s products.

Examples of passive sầu bribery

Passive bribery takes place most often in certain operating functions; examples of instances are below:

Security: A security officer in a company accepts a bribe from criminals khổng lồ allow access for theft.Allocation of goods & services: An employee favours a customer by expediting delivery at the expense of other customers or giving preferential allocation of goods or services.

Xem thêm: Game Quản Lý Bóng Đá Offline Tiếng Việt, Top Eleven 2021: Hãy Trở Thành Hlv Bóng Đá

Recruitment: An executive demands a bribe to lớn appoint or promote a person who would otherwise not have sầu been selected. A senior buyer awards a contract on the strength of promise of a lucrative appointment with the supplier after a suitable interval.Illegal information brokering: An executive accepts a bribe to lớn provide contract specifications to be used in a tender ahead of time. Bribery might also be accepted lớn alter the specification in favour of a bidder.

A Chinese court in năm nhâm thìn gave sầu the head of a logistics company a suspended death sentence and a fine of more than 700,000 yuan (about U.S. $100,000) over a massive explosion on 12 August năm ngoái at a chemical warehouse in the eastern port city of Tianjin that killed 173 people. The dead included 99 firefighters và 11 police officers. Another 798 people were injured, largely because the company illegally built its warehouse too cđại bại khổng lồ residential apartments. The cost of damage was estimated to be U.S. $1 billion according khổng lồ a report by the Chinese government.

The court ruled that Ruihai International Logistics Chairman Yu Xuewei paid bribes to obtain permission to lớn illegally store more than 49,000 tons of sodium cyanide & other highly toxic chemicals at the company’s warehouse in the city’s port between 2013 và 2015. The explosion was aước ao China’s deadliest industrial accidents in recent years và the resulting investigation was directly overseen by the Cabinet.

Various other Tianjin courts gave lesser sentences to lớn 48 other people. They included 25 local government officials và workers accused of dereliction of duty, abuse of power và bribe taking, 12 other Ruinhì employees accused of taking part in the scheme & 11 employees of a company that provided phoney certificates supporting the company’s operations.

Xem thêm: Cách Để Trở Nên Đẹp Trai Như Sao Hàn Giúp Có Ngay Người Yêu, Lột Xác Để Đẹp Trai Hơn Chỉ Với 7 Điều Này


Two former IKEA staff và a supplier were found guilty in the UK in 2007 in a £1.3m bribes case. The convicted parties set up a number of companies lớn supply goods to the UK operation of IKEA. IKEA operated a policy whereby it would not take more than 40 per cent of a supplier’s turnover. This ‘turnover rule’ was designed khổng lồ prsự kiện suppliers being overly reliant on IKEA’s business. In this case virtually the entire turnover of these companies was with IKEA. In addition, by supplying goods through the supplier’s various companies the true extent of the scale of turnover of the supplier’s business with IKEA was masked. To help keep this fact from being discovered và to ensure that the companies’ supplies và invoices would be approved, corrupt payments were made khổng lồ two IKEA executives in influential positions in purchasing và retail sales. Ultimately the position was reached where the supplier was dictating what would be ordered by IKEA according to what goods the supplier had available.