|
REPORTING
CRIMES - The onus is on councillors who are elected to
represent the public and public interest - to be
vigilant, ask questions, demand proofs, and report crimes
(if necessary) directly to the Whistleblowing Commission, on what constitutes fraud, and a lack of
transparency.
Be
warned, you may become the subject of multiple SLAPP
actions, be arrested, have your home searched, and worst of
all, you may be framed by your local police force, for a
crime that never happened. It is easily done, and you'll
have no recourse in law, under the British injustice system
- as it presently stands. That is because of the Innocence
Tax. An unwritten agenda to prevent those wrongly convicted,
of ever getting a matter back into a court, that is not
tainted. And is genuinely impartial and unbiased. For the
avoidance of doubt, that includes no British court, where a
Masonic influence exists, or where the State gives awards
for deflecting appeals, especially concerning Human Rights
activists.
In
Wealden, officers of the council and
councillors, routinely
fail to report crimes to the appropriate authorities, or
blow the whistle. Much the same as the Post
Office, in the Horizon prosecutions scandal. The appropriate authority in this case
does not include Sussex police, where they have shown their true
colours, in failing to investigate as a deliberate plan, and actually aid and
abet the covering up of planning crime in the Wealden area.
To wit the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in
1997, when the criminal complaints of 11 victims of planning
crime were referred to Sussex police by Lord Richard Newton,
but not one of the eleven unrelated complainants was interviewed
to take their evidence.
You
may not know this, but failing to investigate a crime is in
itself a crime, after: R v Dytham [1979] QB 722. This
is a landmark case in English criminal law that dealt with the duty of a police officer to intervene in a criminal act.
The case established the principle that police officers have a duty of care to all of society. It also clarified that the offence of misconduct in public office can be committed by an
omission. This is important common law concerning Malfeasance, or Misconduct in Public Office.
ACTS
OF OMISSION
It
is a fact that employees and councillors are required to
sign a non-disclosure agreement, binding them to not
do their duty and report certain criminal activities, such
as Wealden funding long term SLAPP actions, institutionally
discriminating against more than one member of the public, such as in
denying a reasonable and beneficial use to a valuable
heritage asset, or working with
Sussex police to cover up those crimes when they are
reported.
This
appears to be a condition of receiving expenses, wages and salaries.
Making those at Wealden and other councils, guilty of
bribery - the moment they take the money and then stay
silent. They hear no, and see no evil.
1.
As in accepting money to "not do their public
duty;"
2.
Accepting money, "to not report crime"
outside of their council;
3.
Accepting money to "not ask questions" and;
4.
Accepting money "not investigate reported crimes."
And
in some cases, such as the cases of Ian Kay and Derek
Holness, to accept an enhanced pension (allegedly) as a
further bribe, to prevent them from revealing the extent of
corruption in the Wealden District Council. It appears,
making all of those involved in such conspiracy, criminals.
We imagine the same applies to Charles Lant, and presumably,
Trevor
Scott. Is he on an enhanced salary and what is the
arrangement for his Pension?
Thus,
the qualification you need to become an employee or
councillor in Wealden, is the willingness to be party to organized
crime. That is the allegation.
Make
no mistake, this is organised crime that affects the
economic development of land in Wealden
District Council (WC). It allows WC's corrupt officials,
and tainted Councillors,
to control the supply of land to favoured developers, in
return for keeping their positions of trust, without any
come back in relation to dishonest (insider) trading. This
includes failing to provide affordable housing or land for
self builds. This also includes failing to protect heritage
assets.
It's
all about the money. Build more executive homes, possibly
for cash bribes, but most likely for other forms of
remuneration that are less traceable. Typically, planning
favours. And these abuses of positions of trust, has led us
to a situation where there are no genuinely affordable homes
in Wealden for the mass market. I.e., built by developers or
councils, to provide low cost housing to the public at
large.
It
is called milking the system. Moooooo!
Is accepting an enhanced pension in return for not reporting crime in councils, as in keeping quiet about wrongdoing, or not investigating crime in police forces, bribery under the Bribery Act 2010?
Hello, this is Bing. I can help you with some information about the Bribery Act 2010 and whether accepting an enhanced pension in return for not reporting crime in councils or police forces is bribery under the Act.
The Bribery Act 2010 is an Act of the UK Parliament that criminalises bribery of any kind, including bribing or being bribed by foreign public officials, and failure of commercial organisations to prevent
bribery [1]. The Act covers transactions that take place in the UK or abroad, and both in the public or private
sectors [1].
According to the Act, a person is guilty of bribery if they offer, promise, give, request, agree, receive, or accept a financial or other advantage in exchange for improperly performing a relevant function or activity, or to induce or reward another person for doing
so [2]. A relevant function or activity is one that is of a public nature, connected with a business, performed in the course of a person’s employment, or performed by or on behalf of a body of persons, and is expected to be performed in good faith, impartially, or in a position of
trust [2].
Therefore, accepting an enhanced pension in return for not reporting crime in councils or police forces could be considered bribery under the Act, as it involves receiving a financial advantage for improperly performing a public function or activity that is expected to be performed in good faith and in a position of trust. Such a conduct could amount to an abuse of the public’s trust and a breach of the duty to report crime. The person accepting the pension, as well as the person offering it, could be liable for prosecution and penalties under the
Act [2] [3].
The penalties for bribery offences under the Act are a maximum of 10 years imprisonment, a fine, or both, for individuals, and a fine for
organisations [4]. The Act also provides for a defence for certain bribery offences if the person can prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their
conduct [4]. However, this defence would not apply to accepting an enhanced pension in return for not reporting crime, as there is no reasonable excuse for such a behaviour.
SUSSEX
POLICE IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION
In
furtherance of such corrupt practices, WC have secured the
protection of Sussex
police. Held to be one of the most corrupt forces in the
UK, perhaps second only to the Metropolitan
police. Allegedly.
The
proof is in the pudding. When 11 petitioner's criminal
complaints were referred by Lord Richard Newton, to Sussex
police IN 1997, a massive (institutionalised) cover up ensued.
Detective Keith Lindsay, was seconded as the scapegoat or
patsy, if you prefer, to not investigate the reported
planning frauds. So it is alleged.
This
matter is still live, and will remain live as a skidmark in
the underpants of WCs hall of shame. Recently (19th January 2024) reported
to a serving police officer as part of a longer term SLAPP
action, that constitutes malfeasance. Commonly known as
Misconduct in Public Office. And also reported to local MP,
Huw Merriman and no less than 16 councillors, by recorded
delivery, on the 22nd January 2024. Following a Crime Panel Meeting on 26/1/2024.
We understand that Huw Merriman is/was a qualified
barrister. Or at least undertook such legal training, before
joining Wealden as a councillor, and then embarking on a
career as a Member of Parliament.
YOU
CAN ONLY CHANGE THE LAW BY CHANGING THE LAW MAKERS - The
British Empire was built on slavery. Capturing humans,
beating and torturing, them and working them to death in
colonies. Land that was stolen from native inhabitants. All
of this to support Kings and Queens and their favoured few.
Who styled themselves as Royals, to excuse their barbaric behaviour.
Behaviour based on classing themselves above other humans.
Creating and maintaining a class system, to keep themselves
at the top of the money chain. And all based on working
their fellow human beings to death. There is very little
difference today. Civil servants, councillors, council
officers and employees and members of
parliament maintain a system whereby they live in the lap of
luxury, and tax the workers to support a dysfunctional
government. The proof of which is that Britain has no
surplus or earnings, or reserves to give value to paper
money. Instead, the United Kingdom has huge debts. And that
means you are working to pay off banks, where those loans
should never have been taken. Banks and bankers are only too
pleased to lend fictitious paper money, to make you, via
your country, financial slaves.
The Bribery Act 2010 (c.23) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that covers the criminal law relating to bribery. Introduced to
Parliament in the
Queen's Speech in 2009 after several decades of reports and draft bills, the Act received the Royal Assent on 8 April 2010 following cross-party support. Initially scheduled to enter into force in April 2010, this was changed to 1 July 2011. The Act repeals all previous statutory and common law provisions in relation to bribery, instead replacing them with the crimes of bribery, being bribed, the bribery of foreign public officials, and the failure of a commercial organisation to prevent bribery on its behalf.
The penalties for committing a crime under the Act are a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment, along with an unlimited fine, and the potential for the confiscation of property under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, as well as the disqualification of directors under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. The Act has a near-universal jurisdiction, allowing for the prosecution of an individual or company with links to the United Kingdom, regardless of where the crime occurred. It has been described as "the toughest anti-corruption legislation in the world".
BACKGROUND
Prior to the Act, British anti-bribery law was based on the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889, the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916, a body of law described as "inconsistent, anachronistic and inadequate". Following the Poulson affair in 1972, the Salmon Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended updating and codifying these statutes, but the government of the time took no action. Similar suggestions were brought up in the first report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life established by John Major in 1994, and the Home Office published a draft consultation paper in 1997, discussing extending anti-bribery and anti-corruption law. This was followed by the Law Commission's report Legislating the Criminal Code: Corruption in 1998. The consultation paper and report coincided with mounting criticism from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, who felt that, despite the United Kingdom's ratification of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, its bribery laws were inadequate.
A draft Bribery Bill was announced in the 2002 Queen's Speech, but was rejected by the joint committee examining it. A second consultation paper was issued in 2005 examining the committee's concerns, before the government announced in March that "there was broad support for reform of the current law, but there was no consensus as to how this could be achieved". Following a white paper in March 2009, the Bribery Bill, based on the Law Commission's 2008 report Reforming Bribery, was announced in the Queen's Speech. Initially given all-party support after its introduction by Jack Straw in 2009, the Bill was, according to The Guardian, subject to an attempted filibuster by Members of Parliament (MPs) from the Conservative Party. This followed pressure from the Confederation of British Industry, who worried that the Bill in its original form would hamper the competitiveness of British industry.
The Bill was given Royal Assent on 8 April 2010, becoming the Bribery Act 2010, and was expected to come into force immediately. The government instead chose to hold several rounds of public consultations before announcing that it would come into force in April
2011. Following the publication of guidance by the Ministry of Justice, the act came into effect on 1 July 2011. The Ministry of Justice also released a Quick Start Guide, which highlights some key points of the Act. The Quick Start Guide also suggests companies to consult relevant bodies for advice, including the UK Trade and Investment, and the government sponsored Business Anti-Corruption Portal. In October 2011 Munir Patel, a clerk at Redbridge Magistrates Court, became the first person to be convicted under the Bribery Act, along with misconduct in a public office.
GUARDIAN REVIEW 24 MAY 2023 -
"He is one mean motherfucker you don’t want to mess with!” The memo arrives too late for the
Nazis. When they clap eyes on the mean motherfucker they mistake him for a harmless old gold miner. “Get down on your knees, grandpa,” one orders, laughing so hard that he doesn’t notice the hunting knife entering his skull through his left ear and exiting out of the right. And that’s just for starters.
For the rest of this extravagantly violent and cheerfully entertaining action film from Finland, director Jalmari Helander treats us to a comedy of deaths: a lavish grisly feast of Nazis meeting their maker in outrageous and wildly silly ways that had the audience I watched it with shrieking with laughter.
Sisu is set in 1944, towards the end of the second world
war. It opens with a granite-faced miner striking gold in the middle of nowhere. But setting off on horseback heading to the city, satchel full of
gold, he meets a convoy of Nazis rolling out of Finland. You might think there’s zero mileage left in the movies for psychopathic Nazis, but Helander finds a newish and sort-of-interesting angle here with his portrayal of Germans at the fag end of the conflict: war-addled and woozy, dressed in torn uniform with dead eyes and grimy faces. The game is up, and they are nihilistic.
That said, none of them is exactly burdened with character complexity. That goes for the miner too: he turns out to be a legendary Finnish soldier called Aatami, so tough that he can plunge his hand deep into his own innards to pull out shrapnel. Earlier in the war, the Russians nicknamed him the Immortal, and he’s played by Jorma Tommila, a strong though not quite commanding presence. Like John Wick in a spaghetti western, Aatami takes out the Nazis one by one.
Everyone speaks here in accented English – “get off zeee horse” – which the film gets away with. Firstly, because there’s very little dialogue and secondly, because everything here feels a bit tongue-in-cheek in a Tarantino kind of a way. It’s super fun entertainment, which mostly disguises the fact it’s not going to stick in the mind for long.
THE ACT
GENERAL BRIBERY OFFENCES
Sections 1 to 5 of the Act cover "general bribery offences". The crime of bribery is described in Section 1 as occurring when a person offers, gives or promises to give a "financial or other advantage" to another individual in exchange for "improperly" performing a "relevant function or activity". Section 2 covers the offence of being bribed, which is defined as requesting, accepting or agreeing to accept such an advantage, in exchange for improperly performing such a function or activity. "Financial or other advantage" is not defined in the Act, but, according to Aisha Anwar and Gavin Deeprose in the Scots Law Times, "could potentially encompass items such as contracts, non-monetary gifts and offers of employment". The "relevant function or activity" element is explained in Section 3—it covers "any function of a public nature; any activity connected with a business, trade or profession; any activity performed in the course of a person's employment; or any activity performed by or on behalf of a body of persons whether corporate or unincorporated". This applies to both private and public industry, and encompasses activities performed outside the UK, even activities with no link to the country. The conditions attached are that the person performing the function could be expected to be performing it in good faith or with impartiality, or that an element of trust attaches to that person's role.
Under Section 4, the activity will be considered to be "improperly" performed when the expectation of good faith or impartiality has been breached, or when the function has been performed in a way not expected of a person in a position of trust. Section 5 provides that the standard in deciding what would be expected is what a reasonable person in the UK might expect of a person in such a position. Where the breach has occurred in a jurisdiction outside the UK, local practices or customs should be disregarded when deciding this, unless they form part of the "written law" of the jurisdiction; "written law" is given to mean any constitution, statute or judicial opinion set down in
writing. The general offences also cover situations where the mere acceptance of such an advantage would constitute improperly performing relevant functions or activities.
BRIBERY OF FOREIGN OFFICIALS
Bribery of foreign public officials is a distinct crime under Section 6, in line with the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. A person will be guilty of this offence if they promise, offer or give a financial or other advantage to a foreign public official, either directly or through a third party, where such an advantage is not legitimately due. A foreign public official is defined, under Section 6(4), as "an individual holding legislative, administrative or judicial posts or anyone carrying out a public function for a foreign country or the country's public agencies or an official or agent of a public international organisation". The inclusion of "through a third party" is intended to prevent the use of go-betweens to avoid committing a crime, although if the written law of the country of the foreign public official allows or requires the official to accept the advantage offered, no crime will be
committed. Unlike with general bribery offences, there is no requirement to show that the public official acted improperly as a result; this is a distinction between the Act and the Anti-Bribery Convention. The offence under Section 6 only applies to the briber, and not to the official who receives or agrees to receive such a bribe.
FAILURE OF COMMERCIAL ORGANIZATIONS TO PREVENT BRIBERY
Section 7 creates the "broad and innovatory offence" of the failure of commercial organisations to prevent bribery on their behalf. This applies to all commercial organisations which have business in the UK. Unlike corporate manslaughter, this does not only apply to the organisation itself; individuals and employees may also be found guilty. The offence is one of strict liability, with no need to prove any kind of intention or positive action. It is also one of vicarious liability; a commercial organisation can be guilty of the offence if the bribery is carried out by an employee, an agent, a subsidiary, or another third party, as found in Section 8. The location of the third party is irrelevant to the
prosecution - according to David Aaronberg and Nichola Higgins in the Archbold Review, "therefore, a German business with retail outlets in the UK which pays a bribe in Spain could, in theory at least, face prosecution in the UK". Under Section 7(2), the commercial organisation has a defence if it can show that, while bribery did take place, the commercial organisation had in place "adequate procedures designed to prevent persons associated with [the organisation] from undertaking such conduct". Under the Act's explanatory notes, the burden of proof in this situation is on the organisation, with the standard of proof being "on the balance of probabilities". In 2018, a London-based company Skansen Interiors Ltd., who admitted to an incident of bribery, but sought to rely on the "adequate defences" defences, was found not to have put in place sufficient measures to meet the requirements of the Act.
Guidance was published by the Secretary of State three months before the Act came into force. The Guidance sets out six principles to be followed by business. They cover:
1. Proportionate procedures
2. Top-level commitment
3. Risk assessment
4. Due diligence
5. Communication (including training)
6. Monitoring and review
The one firm conclusion to be drawn from the Guidance is that every commercial organisation that might be subject to the rigours of the Act needs to have a code of conduct in place that appropriately reflects the Guidance and to ensure its personnel are fully conversant with the risks and adequately trained. If it is then charged with the offence of failing to prevent bribery, it would be able to show evidence of the 'adequate procedures' which it will need in order to defend itself.
BOUNTY
HUNTERS - Any council member, or officer who breaks the law,
is fair game. At the moment WC are trying to charge
ratepayers more for Sussex police to quash discontent, and
to pay for their gargantuan mismanagement and profiteering
from the planning system, presumably as untraceable brown
envelopes: typically, planning favours. Years of not building
affordable houses, by pandering to developers and landlords,
who only want
to build executive housing, has led to a shortage of low
cost homes. And a staggering bill for temporary
accommodation. The shortsightedness of which constitutes
mind blowing misfeasance in public office, where the cover up,
may well translate to malfeasance. As in criminal
negligence. To date councils like
Wealden have been getting away with it, because when
planning fraud is reported, Sussex police have been covering
it up. No wonder we have the Horizon post office fiasco.
Statute in this country is not fit for purpose. We need a
Written Constitution.
PROSECUTION AND PENALTIES
Section 10 requires the authorisation of any prosecution by the director of the appropriate prosecution agency before a case can go ahead; this is a shift from the old regime, which required the consent of the Attorney General for England and Wales. Section 11 explains the penalties for individuals and companies found guilty of committing a crime. If an individual is found guilty of a bribery offence, tried as a summary offence, he or she may be imprisoned for up to 12 months and fined up to £5,000. Someone found guilty on indictment, however, faces up to 10 years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine. The crime of a commercial organisation failing to prevent bribery is punishable by an unlimited fine. In addition, a convicted individual or organisation may be subject to a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, while a company director who is convicted may be disqualified under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.
Of
course, statute is useless, if there are no prosecutions.
Such as if the police are in on the bribery, being bribed
themselves.
OTHER PROVISIONS
The scope of the Act's provisions is set out in Section 12. For someone to fall within the Act's purview, he or she must have either committed a crime inside the United Kingdom, or acted outside of the United Kingdom in a way which would have constituted a crime had it happened in the UK. For a prosecution in the latter case, the person must have a "close connection" to the UK, which includes being a British citizen, resident or protected person, a company incorporated in the UK, or a Scottish
partnership. Section 13 provides the only defence available with the general bribery
offences - that the conduct was necessary for the proper functioning of the intelligence services or, when engaged in active service, the armed forces. Under Section 14, senior officers or directors in a company which commits a general bribery offence will also be liable for the purposes of the
Act. In the case of an offence committed by a partnership, Section 15 provides that the prosecution must be brought in the name of the partnership and not in the name of any of the partners.
Under Section 16, the Act applies to servants of the crown, while Section 17 repeals all previous common law and statutory offences relating to bribery, replacing them with provisions of the Act. Section 18 provides that the Act applies to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; while the separate consent of the Scottish Parliament is usually required in such cases, as is made clear in Section 19, a Legislative Consent Motion was passed on 11 February 2010, allowing for the application of the Act within Scotland.
ASSESSMENT
The Act has been described as "the toughest anti-corruption legislation in the world", raising the bar above the standard set by the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Despite being "widely drafted and far-reaching in scope [and] in many ways an improvement upon earlier corruption legislation", significant concerns have been raised, mainly around the fact that the Act may harm British industry's competitiveness in the global market. David Aaronberg and Nichola Higgins, writing in the Archbold Review, argue that section 6 particularly has the potential to include actions which are ethically problematic but seen as legally permissible. Aisha Anwar and Gavin Deeprose in the Scots Law Times take a similar line, highlighting as particularly problematic areas corporate hospitality and facilitation payments, described as "essentially a form of extortion on the payer and, although not a common feature in the UK, they are commonplace in many foreign jurisdictions", which may fall under the scope of the Act despite being permissible in the commercial world.
The Ministry of Justice's guidance document explains the policy goal behind the Act not making an exception for facilitation payments:
As was the case under the old law, the Bribery Act does not (unlike US foreign bribery law) provide any exemption for such payments. The 2009 Recommendation of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development recognises the corrosive effect of facilitation payments and asks adhering countries to discourage companies from making such payments. Exemptions in this context create artificial distinctions that are difficult to enforce, undermine corporate anti-bribery procedures, confuse anti-bribery communication with employees and other associated persons, perpetuate an existing 'culture' of bribery and have the potential to be abused.
— Ministry of Justice, Bribery Act 2010 guidance
PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
In May 2018, the House of Lords appointed a select committee to report on the Act. The current membership is as follows:
The committee considered the issue of corporate hospitality and the challenge of conducting business across different cultures. They found that some companies were so nervous that they worried about providing a sandwich lunch, and that guidance provided to firms regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority differed from the Ministry of Justice Guidance. There has not yet been any judicial interpretation of the Act so the committee felt that discretion would still be needed, depending on the circumstances of each commercial relationship, the underlying principle being that intention is key.
IMPACT ON COUNCILS - NIL
Corruption in the United Kingdom, in the public sector, is defined by public servants using their office for private gain. Public sector corruption in the
United Kingdom is perceived to be mostly rare with Transparency International rating the United Kingdom joint 11th out of 180 in their 2020 Corruption Perceptions Index.
The United Kingdom currently has numerous laws that punish civil servants for bribery and other forms of corruption, with the Bribery Act 2010 currently the most relevant. Though the UK has long maintained a high rating in the Corruption Perceptions Index, public discontent as well as dissatisfaction has persisted, with criticism from newspapers also having so as well. This has largely been because of the UK's fall from the top 10 in the CPI.
The Bribery Act 2010 is currently the most relevant law in the United Kingdom that punishes public and private bribery. The law does not make any distinction in sentencing between those who bribe (or are bribed) in the public or private sector.
If only the Justice Minister, currently Alex
Chalk, would use it to prosecute someone at Wealden,
such as the alleged fraudsters Ian Kay and Derek Holness,
both whom are suspected of accepting (even demanding)
enhanced pensions in exchange for staying silent as to their
parts in various planning conspiracies.
Or, it is that
there is no bribery taking place in the UK?
Bribery
and corruption is like a cancer
eating away at our society. We must seek to identify the
social vampires, the blood sucking leaches that are costing
the taxpayers fortunes, to service the enhanced salaries and
pensions of the plantation slavers.
The
only way to prevent meltdown, is full transparency. The
public should have a right to properly inspect the accounts
of any council. To be able to cross check salaries and
pensions, against services not being provided. Another way
of catching out corrupt Councillors and planning chiefs, is
to compare their salaries, with the property they own and
money in the bank. Looking for unexplained wealth, that
should automatically trigger an investigation.
The
computer algorithm already exists to make this happen, but
the State will not use it, because many of our MPs
are corrupt, when it comes to expenses, not declaring
bribes, or any other gratuity, that might explain their
unexplained wealth.
WHAT
IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION?
Bribery is a specific act of offering or giving something of value to influence or sway the actions of another person. This can include money, gifts, or other incentives. Bribery is often used to gain an unfair advantage or to manipulate a situation in one’s favor [1].
Corruption is a broader term that can include bribery, but also encompasses other forms of misconduct such as fraud, embezzlement, nepotism, and abuse of power. Corruption is the abuse of power for personal gain or benefit. Corruption can occur at any level of an organization, from the bottom to the top [2].
The difference between corruption and bribery is that, while all bribery is a form of corruption, not all corruption is bribery. Also, bribery means offering something in need of a favor, but corruption can extend to selfish gains such as mismanaging funds or violating
human rights [3].
THE
ECONOMIC CRIME & CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT 2023 & WHISTLEBLOWING The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act (ECTA) 2023 has some direct application to individual
Council and Post Office officials, or indeed, ministers or police officers engaged in
a cover up fraud against members of the public. It can play a supporting role in uncovering and prosecuting such cases in several ways:
Supporting Tools:
- Enhanced Financial Investigations: ECTA expands powers for authorities to obtain financial information and trace suspicious transactions. This can help connect corrupt officials' activities to illicit financial gains.
- Whistleblower Protection: The Act strengthens whistleblower protections, encouraging council staff to report internal fraud without fear of reprisal. This can provide valuable information for investigations.
- Unexplained Wealth Orders: If a council official possesses wealth disproportionate to their known income, UWOs can be used to investigate the source of that wealth and potentially uncover fraudulent activities.
Indirect Impact:
- Corporate Liability: While ECTA targets companies, it can put pressure on local authorities to implement better anti-fraud controls and oversight mechanisms. This can make it harder for individual officials to commit fraud undetected.
- Increased Scrutiny: The Act's focus on transparency and beneficial ownership can expose hidden conflicts of interest or shell companies used by corrupt officials. This can raise public awareness and encourage investigations.
- Deterrence: The harsher penalties and increased risk of detection under ECTA may serve as a deterrent to potential fraudsters within local authorities.
Additional Measures:
While ECTA isn't the primary tool for directly prosecuting corrupt council officials, other legal frameworks have specific provisions for such cases:
- Bribery Act 2010: Criminalizes offering, accepting, or bribing an official.
- Fraud Act 2006: Covers various forms of fraud, including deception, false accounting, and abuse of position.
- R v Dytham 1979: Makes it an offense for public officials to knowingly act in a way that constitutes a breach of trust, such as abusing their position for personal gain.
To effectively prosecute corrupt council officials, a combination of these legal frameworks, along with investigative resources and political will, is crucial.
Several sections of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECTA) strengthen whistleblower protections and encourage individuals to report wrongdoing within companies:
Enhanced Protection:
- Section 83: Extends existing whistleblower protections under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) to cover disclosures made to certain regulated activities outside the UK, aligning with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Anti-Bribery Convention. - Section 84: Introduces a reverse burden of proof in certain PIDA cases, meaning employers must prove they did not take retaliatory action against whistleblowers who disclosed qualifying information. This makes it easier for whistleblowers to win unfair dismissal claims. - Section 85: Expands the definition of "work-related information" in PIDA to encompass information about potential environmental damage, health and safety risks, and tax evasion, broadening the scope of protected disclosures.
Confidentiality and Support:
- Section 86: Strengthens anonymity protections for whistleblowers, allowing them to make disclosures anonymously through internal or external reporting channels without fear of being identified. - Section 88: Mandates companies with 50 or more employees to establish internal reporting channels for whistleblowers to report concerns confidentially. - Section 89: Requires companies to provide appropriate support to whistleblowers, including access to legal advice and counseling.
Reporting Mechanisms:
- Section 90: Introduces a new reporting mechanism for whistleblowers to disclose concerns directly to the Office of the Whistleblower Commissioner, an independent body empowered to investigate complaints and recommend remedies. - Section 91: Expands the powers of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the National Crime Agency (NCA) to receive and investigate whistleblower disclosures concerning money laundering and economic crime.
These provisions aim to create a more supportive and secure environment for whistleblowers to report wrongdoing, potentially leading to earlier detection and prevention of corporate misconduct. Contact
Victor confidentially for details, proofs of evidence, etc: victor@humanrightsuk.org
REFERENCES
[1]
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/23/contents
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bribery-act-2010-guidance
[3] https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/regulation/bribery-act-2010
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery_Act_2010
[5] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d80cfd5ed915d5257b5b693/bribery-act-2010-quick-start-guide.pdf
[1]
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/23/contents
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bribery-act-2010-guidance
[3] https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/regulation/bribery-act-2010
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery_Act_2010
[5] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d80cfd5ed915d5257b5b693/bribery-act-2010-quick-start-guide.pdf
|
