Myassignment.live is not sponsored or endorsed by this college or university
The primary issue in the provided situation is whether Solarparc can be made criminally accountable in the nation of England in relation to the dealings concerning Energy Supply Co. in the nation of Baldovia.
Section 7 as provided in the Bribery Act enforced in the year of 2010 must be considered to be a pertinent law in relation to the provided situation. This particular provision of the aforementioned Act levies strict liability upon companies or organizations, which are not successful in preventing any particular action relating to bribery, unless the organization or the company is able to demonstrate and establish adequate procedures were considered and followed by such company or organization so that the occurrence of such offence may be prevented. Any particular organization shall be considered to be guilty of an offence relating to bribery, if any specific individual who may be connected to the organization, has been found to be guilty in relation to bribing any other person for two known incentives. First, to acquire or preserve business for the company. Second, to acquire or preserve any specific business advantage for benefit of the company.
According to the Bribery Act enforced in the year of 2010, an organization or a company shall be able to protect and safeguard itself from bribery accusations and risk, if the organization to the company is able to prove and establish that it has followed the ‘adequate procedures’ as forwarded in the Bribery Act. First is the proportionate business. It may be said that the procedures of the organization that are envisioned to stop the bribery offences, must be proportionate in relation to bribery risk that may be faced by the organization. Second is top-level commitment. The directors of the organization must be entirely committed to stop bribery offences and establish a surrounding that does not bear or tolerate corruption or bribery. Third is risk assessment. It must be demonstrated by the organization that assessments for analyzing probable openings for risks has been conducted in a periodical manner. Fourth is due diligence. It must be demonstrated by the organization that due diligence procedures have been conducted in order to evade bribery risks. Fifth is communication. It generally projected that training and communication in relation to bribery offences are held, so that the prevention of bribery is sufficiently understood. Sixth is review and monitoring. A particular organization should all the time update the procedures and policies relating to prevention of bribery.
The case of R v Skansen Interiors Limited, Southwark Crown Court (2018) must be considered to be a pertinent case in relation to the provided situation. In this specific case, a case of corporate offence was filed and charged against the organization named Skansen. It was pleaded by Skansen that it was not guilty in relation to the aforementioned charge. It was argued by Skansen that all the ‘adequate procedures’ were followed in a proper manner for the prevention of bribery. The arguments of Skansen were not accepted and it was held that the ‘adequate procedures’ were not followed in a proper manner for preventing bribery. Hence, Skansen was convicted.
The case of R v Sweett Group PLC (2016) shall be regarded as a relevant case in relation to the provided situation. In this specific case, Sweett Group was held to be guilty in relation to corporate offence. While determining the culpability of Sweett, certain conditions were considered by the court. Firstly, it was considered that the offence occurred over a prolonged time period. Secondly, no adequate steps were taken for improving the internal governance of the organization after the enforcement of the Bribery Act of the year 2010. Thirdly, the management of the organization deliberately disregarded the apprehensions that were raised by the reports of the external accountants. Fourthly, individuals of Sweett wilfully tried to mislead and deceive the SFO in relation to the investigation.
In the provided situation, Energy Group Co. in Baldovia is being investigated for probable bribery offences. This fact is known by Ankur who is the managing director of the organization named Solarparc. He assures that Solarparc follows strict anti-bribery methods. However, such policies are not extended in relation to the sister organizations.
Applying section 7 as provided in the Bribery Act enforced in the year of 2010 in the provided scenario, it may be said that Solarparc shall be considered to be guilty of an offence relating to bribery, if any specific individual who may be connected to the organization, has been found to be guilty in relation to bribing any other person for two known incentives. First, to acquire or preserve business for the company. Second, to acquire or preserve any specific business advantage for benefit of the company.
As per the Bribery Act enforced in the year of 2010, it may be said that the ‘adequate procedures’ must have been followed by Solarparc. Firstly, the procedures of Solarparc that are envisioned to stop the bribery offences, must be proportionate in relation to bribery risk that may be faced by it. Secondly, the director(s) of Solarparc must be entirely committed to stop bribery offences and establish a surrounding that does not bear or tolerate corruption or bribery. Thirdly, it must be demonstrated by Solarparc that assessments for analyzing probable openings for risks has been conducted in a periodical manner. Fourthly, it must be demonstrated by Solarparc that due diligence procedures have been conducted in order to evade bribery risks. Fifthly, training and communication in relation to bribery offences must be held in Solarparc, so that the prevention of bribery is sufficiently understood. Lastly, a particular Solarparc should have updated the procedures and policies relating to prevention of bribery.
Applying the case of R v Skansen Interiors Limited, Southwark Crown Court (2018) in the given scenario, it may be said that all the ‘adequate procedures’ must be followed in a proper manner by Solarparc for the prevention of bribery.
The case of R v Sweett Group PLC (2016) shall be applied in relation to the provided situation. In determining the culpability of Solarparc, certain conditions should be considered by the court. Firstly, it must be considered that the offence occurred over a prolonged time period. Secondly, it should be discovered that whether adequate steps were taken for improving the internal governance of the organization after the enforcement of the Bribery Act of the year 2010. Thirdly, it should be discovered that whether the management of Solarparc deliberately disregarded the apprehensions concerning bribery offence. Fourthly, whether individuals of Solarparc wilfully tried to mislead and deceive the investigation.
To conclude, it can be said that Solarparc can be made criminally accountable in the nation of England if it did not follow the adequate steps as provided in the Bribery Act of 2010.
The primary issue in relation to the provided scenario is that in what manner Aadam and Marina would be held accountable.
The case of R v Joseph Ashman & Others (2016) must be considered to be a pertinent case in connection to the provided situation. In this specific case, two individuals (Mary Dunn and Mandy Ashman) were held to be guilty for laundering money. The National Crime Agency noticed the activities concerning Joseph Ashman as well as the associates of Joseph Ashman. Evidence in this regard demonstrated that Mandy Ashman, the wife of Joseph Ashman laundered the criminal revenues in relation to the drug related activities of Joseph Ashman, with the help of mortgages concerning two properties. Even benefits were claimed by them. The sister of Ashman, whose name was Mary Dunn permitted the utilization of her bank accounts in relation to the transactions, which were connected to the false employment through decorating and painting business. It was held that Joseph, his wife Mandy and the sister named Mary, were guilty and accountable in relation to money laundering. It was stated that the criminal activities of Joseph Ashman resulted in the lavish lifestyle of his family. It was presumed by Joseph that he and his family would be able to escape the law with the help of false business companies and the laundering of money.
The case of R v Koort & Others (2016) shall be considered to be a pertinent case in connection to the provided situation. In this specific case, a couple, namely Jeanette Rosen and Danny Kroot, conducted a sincere and genuine business in relation to the dealing of diamonds. However, afterwards it was discovered that the business relating to diamonds was utilized as a front or cover for laundering money. It was also discovered that an accomplice named Andrew Russell was involved in the process of money laundering. All the three individuals mentioned above, were held to be guilty and accountable in relation to fraud and the laundering of money. They were convicted and sentenced to jail.
In the case of R v Swales (2010), it was held that the defendant was guilty and accountable for acceptance of money that was acquired through a rogue and bogus builder scam.
Section 327 as provided in the Proceeds of Crime Act of the year 2002 deals with the concealing offence in relation to the money laundering offences. As per this section, an individual shall commit a wrongdoing or an offence if any criminal property is concealed, or disguised, or converted, or transferred, or removed from the nation of United Kingdom itself. It has been stated in this section that a property shall be considered to be a criminal property if it institutes any benefit of an individual from any kind of criminal conduct, and that the offender has the knowledge that the property represents such benefit.
Section 328 as provided in the Proceeds of Crime Act of the year 2002 states that an individual may commit arranging offence relating to money laundering, if such individual becomes involved in any arrangement that have a connection to a criminal property. Section 329 of this Act states that an offence may be committed if a criminal property is acquired, possessed and utilized by an individual. The punishment in relation to the aforementioned three sections is a maximum prison sentence of 14 years after indictment.
In the provided scenario, Marina purchases a lavish studio flat, although the paperwork is created to show that the money is genuine. Both Marina and her father Aadam have knowledge regarding the transaction.
Applying R v Joseph Ashman & Others (2016), it may be said that Marina and Aadam may be held guilty and accountable in relation to money laundering. They shall not be able to escape law by establishing scam paperwork.
Applying R v Koort & Others (2016), it may be said that Aadam and Marina may be held guilty and accountable in relation to fraud and the laundering of money. They may be convicted and sentenced to jail.
Applying R v Swales (2010), it may be said that Marina and Aadam may be held guilty and accountable for the purposes of money laundering.
Applying section 327 as provided in the Proceeds of Crime Act of the year 2002, it may be said that Marina or Aadam may commit a wrongdoing or an offence if any criminal property is concealed, or disguised, or converted, or transferred, or removed from the nation of United Kingdom itself. It has been stated in this section that a property shall be considered to be a criminal property if it institutes any benefit of an individual from any kind of criminal conduct, and that the offender has the knowledge that the property represents such benefit.
Applying section 328 as provided in the Proceeds of Crime Act of the year 2002, it may be said that Aadam or Marina may commit arranging offence relating to money laundering, if they become involved in any arrangement that have a connection to a criminal property. Applying section 329 of this Act, it may be said that an offence may be committed if a criminal property is acquired, possessed and utilized by Aadam or Marina. The punishment in relation to the aforementioned three sections is a maximum prison sentence of 14 years after indictment.
To conclude, it may be said that Aadam and Marina would be held accountable for money laundering and may be sentenced to jail for such offence.
Bribery Act, 2010.
R v Joseph Ashman & Others (2016).
R v Koort & Others (2016).
R v Skansen Interiors Limited, Southwark Crown Court (2018).
R v Swales (2010).
R v Sweett Group PLC (2016).
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
My Assignment Help. (2022). Accounting Principles II. Retrieved from https://myassignment.live/free-samples/acct2023-accounting-principles-ii/financial-statements-of-the-business-file-A1D39FE.html.
"Accounting Principles II." My Assignment Help, 2022, https://myassignment.live/free-samples/acct2023-accounting-principles-ii/financial-statements-of-the-business-file-A1D39FE.html.
My Assignment Help (2022) Accounting Principles II [Online]. Available from: https://myassignment.live/free-samples/acct2023-accounting-principles-ii/financial-statements-of-the-business-file-A1D39FE.html
[Accessed 06 September 2022].
My Assignment Help. 'Accounting Principles II' (My Assignment Help, 2022) < https://myassignment.live/free-samples/acct2023-accounting-principles-ii/financial-statements-of-the-business-file-A1D39FE.html> accessed 06 September 2022.
My Assignment Help. Accounting Principles II [Internet]. My Assignment Help. 2022 [cited 06 September 2022]. Available from: https://myassignment.live/free-samples/acct2023-accounting-principles-ii/financial-statements-of-the-business-file-A1D39FE.html.
Are you confident that you will achieve the grade?
Our best Expert will help you improve your grade
If you are the original writer of this content and no longer wish to have your work published on Myassignment.live then please raise the content removal request.