There is another area in which Section 6 is weaker than its counterparts. Anti-bribery statutes in various parts of the world have a “local law” defence as regards official corruption. Under the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 1977, for example, if it is legal for the third-world harbourmaster to demand money from the importing US company with menaces, that company has no choice but to pay him or ship its wares home again with no recourse to a US court. Section 6 has the same stipulation. The US federal courts are gradually whittling this right away and the English courts may do the same, but this is at present unknowable.

The “local law” defence is not, however, available for the business-to-business offences. Here, the bribed party must be breaching a “relevant expectation” which he ought to be fulfilling impartially or in good faith (Sections 3-4). Section 5 states than when a jury evaluates the validity of such an expectation it must look at “what a reasonable person in the United Kingdom would expect in relation to the performance of the type of function or activity concerned”. This tendency to apply UK standards all over the world is present in other criminal statutes such as the Money Laundering Regulations and is increasing with time. It is no wonder that commentators are expecting a “B2B” test case to emerge before one that involves the corruption of public officials.

The FCA’s report on bribery and corruption in the asset management sector is due to be published sometime this quarter.