| dc.contributor.author |
Cassim, Rehana
|
|
| dc.date.accessioned |
2026-02-19T07:59:37Z |
|
| dc.date.available |
2026-02-19T07:59:37Z |
|
| dc.date.issued |
2025 |
|
| dc.identifier.citation |
(2025) 142(2) South African Law Journal 347-37 |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.issn |
0258-2503 |
|
| dc.identifier.uri |
https://ir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/32165 |
|
| dc.description.abstract |
An innovative provision of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities
Act 12 of 2004 is the recently introduced s 34A. This section establishes a new
offence: members of the private sector and incorporated state-owned entities can be
held liable for failing to prevent bribery by an associated person. To escape liability,
the entity must prove that it had adequate procedures in place to prevent bribery.
This article examines the interpretation, application and enforcement of s 34A.
The article compares s 34A to s 7 of the UK Bribery Act, 2010, on which it
is modelled, and makes recommendations for interpreting, applying and enforcing s
34A. The article argues that s 34A holds immense potential to curb the distressingly
high levels of bribery in South Africa, but that its effectiveness and impact will depend
on how it is enforced and on the collective commitment to upholding its principles. |
en_US |
| dc.language.iso |
en |
en_US |
| dc.publisher |
South African Law Journal |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004 |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
Criminal liability of companies |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
Prevention of bribery |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
Associated person |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
Defence of adequate procedures |
en_US |
| dc.title |
An Analysis of the Failure of a Company to Prevent Bribery under the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004 |
en_US |
| dc.type |
Article |
en_US |