Anti-Bribery & Corruption — Module 2 of 4
When a $2,000 payment could save the company A$95,000 — but cost it everything.
Compliance Manager, Meridian Engineering Pty Ltd
Three months since the Grand Final hospitality incident. Your credibility with the board is growing. Now Ghana is about to test everything you've built.
Meridian Engineering Pty Ltd won a A$2.4M subcontract for structural works in Accra, Ghana — its first major West African project.
Structural steel and specialist equipment has been stuck at Tema Port for 3 weeks. The port cites 'incomplete documentation' but won't specify what.
Project is 12 days behind. Liquidated damages of A$16,000/day start Monday. Meridian's ABC policy forbids bribery — but says nothing about facilitation payments.
This is a decision-driven scenario. You'll face real decisions — and your choices shape how the story unfolds.
Tip: Highlighted text like Criminal Code s.70.2 is clickable — tap to read the legal reference in full.
Your desk phone rings. Caller ID: +233 — Ghana. It's Kofi Mensah, from the Accra site office.
Alexa, the shipment still hasn't cleared. Three weeks. They keep saying the documentation is incomplete, but they won't tell me what's missing.
The customs officer — a man called Adjei — took me aside. He said, very politely, that for a 'processing fee' of two thousand dollars, the shipment would clear tomorrow morning.
I've worked logistics in West Africa for twelve years. Every company pays this. The ones that don't? Their equipment rusts at the port. Can we pay it? If not, I need a Plan B, fast.
Wednesday, 4:05 PM. Kofi is on the line. The maths: $2,000 now, or A$16,000/day starting Monday — potentially A$95,000+ in LDs. Meridian's ABC policy forbids bribery but is silent on facilitation payments. With Kofi's voice in your ear and the clock running, the pressure to 'find a way' is real.
Refuse the payment. Escalate formally.
Kofi refuses, documents the demand (date, time, words, official's name), reports to the Austrade team in Accra, and engages a licensed Ghanaian customs broker. Criminal Code s.70.2 makes paying a foreign official for business advantage criminal — even if small and 'routine'.
Ask Kofi to verify if it's a legitimate fee.
Ask Kofi to check whether it's a formal charge with a Ghana Revenue Authority receipt. If yes, pay through proper channels. If no receipt, refuse. Buys time without authorising anything.
Approve the payment as a facilitation fee.
Authorise the $2,000. Small amount, routine customs action, and the commercial cost of refusal dwarfs it. Many companies treat this as the cost of doing business. Record as 'port handling fees'.
Kofi, we can't pay. No facilitation exemption under UK law. Two thousand dollars or two million — same offence.
Laws don't move containers, Alexa. What's the plan?
Three things. Document the demand — date, time, words, the official's name. I'll contact Austrade in Accra. Can you get me a reputable local broker?
Yaw Boateng — cleared shipments for Vinci and Skanska. Not cheap, but legitimate. I'll send his details.
Good. And Kofi — thanks for calling first. A lot of people wouldn't have.
I've seen what happens when people don't. It doesn't end well.
Criminal Code s.70.2 (Cth) criminalises paying a foreign public official for business advantage. Unlike the US FCPA, it has no exemption for facilitation payments — not for small amounts, not for routine government action. The Adequate Procedures Guidance expects policies aimed at eliminating them.
Kofi, before we do anything, I need you to ask the customs official one question: can you get an official government receipt for this payment? Issued by the Ghana Revenue Authority, with a reference number?
Alexa, I know what you're doing. You're trying to find out if it's a real fee or a bribe. I can tell you right now — there's no receipt. There never is.
Then we can't pay it. But I need you to ask formally, so we have a record of the response.
Fine. I'll ask. But when he says no — and he will say no — what's the plan?
Asking for a receipt is good practice, but Criminal Code s.141.1 doesn't require you to investigate before refusing — the request itself, as described by Kofi, strongly indicates a bribe. The 'receipt test' builds documentation but shouldn't delay the fundamental decision to refuse. You've gathered evidence, but haven't yet resolved the situation.
Kofi, go ahead and pay the two thousand. Record it as port handling fees in the project accounts. Let's get the shipment moving.
Are you sure? I want you to be very clear about this, Alexa. I'm not going to be the one holding the bag if someone asks questions.
I'm sure. The commercial exposure is fifty thousand plus. Two thousand to make it go away is a business decision.
It's your call. I'll handle it. But Alexa — I want this in writing. An email from you authorising the payment.
You've authorised a payment to a foreign public official in exchange for a business advantage. Under Criminal Code s.70.2, this is a criminal offence carrying up to 10 years' imprisonment and unlimited fines — for you personally, and for Meridian under Criminal Code s.70.5A. Recording it as 'port handling fees' compounds the problem: it's potential fraud as well as bribery. And Kofi — wisely — has asked for written authorisation. There's now a document trail leading directly to you.
It's Thursday morning. The shipment is still at Tema Port. Liquidated damages begin Monday — four days away.
You've just received a calendar invite from Sarah Park, Operations Director: "Urgent — Ghana project delay. My office. 12:00." The subject line is in red.
You check the project file. The main contractor has sent a formal notice of delay, referencing clause 8.3 of the subcontract. The clock is now contractual, not just operational. If the equipment isn't on site by Friday of next week, Meridian faces not only LDs but a potential termination for default.
Your phone buzzes. A text from Kofi: "Adjei came by the site office this morning. Asked if we'd made a decision about the processing fee. He was very polite. He's always very polite."
Sarah Park is standing behind her desk when you arrive. She doesn't sit down.
Alexa, I've just had the MD on the phone. He's had the main contractor on the phone. They're talking about termination for default. Do you understand what that means for this company?
I understand the commercial position, Sarah.
Good. Then help me understand the compliance position. Because right now, the compliance position is costing us eight and a half thousand pounds a day. Starting Monday.
The customs official in Accra is demanding a payment. Under the Criminal Code (Cth)—
I don't need a lecture on the Criminal Code (Cth), Alexa. I need a solution. We're looking at fifty thousand plus in LDs, potential termination of a two-point-four million pound contract, and reputational damage with the main contractor we can't put a number on.
I'm not telling you to pay anyone anything. I'm telling you: find a way. That's what compliance is for, isn't it? Finding ways to do business without breaking the law?
Before advising Sarah, anchor your thinking. For each scenario, select the most accurate compliance classification.
A. A $50 cash payment to a port official for a receipted "expedited handling fee" listed on the published port schedule.
B. A supplier offers dinner for two at a restaurant one week before a tender closes.
C. A long-standing partner sends two A$180 trade-fair tickets — they are declared in advance, but your team is currently pricing a renewal contract with that partner.
D. An agent’s retainer invoice quotes a "success fee" equal to 12% of contract value — two to three times industry norm for the region.
E. A prospective client in a high-risk jurisdiction pays for a A$22/head team lunch at an industry conference, while their procurement team evaluates your proposal.
Sarah hasn't sat down. The project file is open: delay notice, LD schedule, termination clause. She's right that compliance isn't just saying no. She's also applying pressure that, if the payment is made, could implicate her under s.70.5A. But she hasn't told you to pay. She's too smart for that.
Hold the line. Present the legal exposure.
Spell it out: paying exposes Meridian under Criminal Code s.70.2 — up to 10 years' prison, unlimited fines. Propose alternatives: licensed broker, High Commission engagement, escalation to Ghana's port authority. Slower but defensible. s.70.5A means without adequate procedures, the company is on the hook too.
Escalate to the CFO. This is above your grade.
Tell Sarah this is a board-level call. A$95,000+ LDs vs unlimited fines and 10yr prison needs someone with authority to accept corporate risk. Request an emergency meeting with CFO Helen Carr before close.
Tell Sarah you'll 'look into options.'
Buy time. Don't authorise, don't refuse. Tell Sarah you're exploring alternatives and will update her by Friday. Hope the broker or High Commission route resolves it before you have to make a harder call.
Sarah, here's the other side. Criminal Code s.70.2: paying a foreign public official for business advantage. Ten years' prison. Unlimited fines. The AFP prosecuted Securency / NPA in 2021 — A$77 million.
Securency was millions in bribes. This is two thousand dollars.
No minimum threshold. And there's a corporate offence — Criminal Code s.70.5A, 'failure to prevent foreign bribery'. If anyone at Meridian pays, and we can't show adequate procedures, the company is liable.
So what do you propose? 'Don't pay' isn't a solution.
Kofi's engaging Yaw Boateng — broker who's cleared shipments for Vinci and Skanska. I'm contacting the Austrade commercial team. And I'll write formally to the Ghana Revenue Authority requesting clarification. Boateng says 5-7 working days if our docs are in order.
That's another forty to sixty thousand in LDs.
Versus criminal prosecution, debarment, and a conviction that follows Meridian for decades. I know which number is bigger.
Criminal Code s.70.5A is strict liability: if an associated person bribes to obtain or retain business for the company, the company is guilty — unless it proves adequate procedures. Meridian's exposure isn't limited to who pays. Procedures are the shield.
Sarah, I think this decision needs to go to Helen. Commercial exposure and criminal exposure are both significant. This is a board-level risk call.
You want me to tell the CFO that compliance can't give me a clear answer on a two-thousand-dollar payment?
I can give you a clear answer: the payment is illegal under UK law. What I can't do is unilaterally accept fifty thousand pounds in commercial losses. That's a decision for someone with budget authority.
Fine. I'll set up the call. But Alexa — Helen is going to ask you the same question I'm asking. Have a better answer ready.
Escalation is procedurally sound — commercial decisions of this magnitude should involve senior leadership. But you've missed an opportunity to lead. Criminal Code s.70.5A adequate-procedures requires the right people making the right decisions at the right level. If Meridian's ABC policy clearly covered facilitation payments with an escalation protocol and pre-approved alternatives, this conversation wouldn't be happening in Sarah's office at noon on a Thursday.
Sarah, I'm looking into options. I'll have an update for you by end of day Friday.
Friday? Alexa, LDs start Monday. I need an answer today, not a status update on Friday.
I understand the urgency. I'm exploring alternative channels to clear the shipment without—
Without what? Without paying? Alexa, I asked you to find a way. If you can't, tell me now so I can find someone who can.
Compliance officers who fail to give clear guidance create the conditions for non-compliance. If you don't say 'no', someone else may say 'yes'. Under Criminal Code s.70.5A, the company's defence depends on adequate procedures — which includes clear, timely decision-making by the people responsible for compliance. A non-answer from the Compliance Manager is not an adequate procedure. It's an absence of one.
The customs broker, Yaw Boateng, secured clearance in five working days. The 'missing documentation' turned out to be a classification code the port authority had changed six months earlier. The original paperwork was fine — it just needed the updated code.
Cost of the legitimate route: A$23,000 broker fees + A$42,500 in LDs = A$54,500.
Equipment is on site. Project back on track. Sarah hasn't thanked you, but hasn't complained either. The MD called it "handled well, considering".
But the incident exposed something: Meridian has no clear policy on facilitation payments, no pre-approved channels, no customs broker on retainer. Every time this happens — and it will — it'll be another crisis.
Before revealing each stage, predict the outcome. Your prediction is scored — no free reveals.
Wednesday, 3:00 PM. Crisis over. Now: turn this into systemic change, or file the report and move on? The MD's comment gives you political cover. But policy work takes time, and three other matters are on your desk.
Draft a comprehensive facilitation payments policy.
Standalone policy: (1) prohibition with no exceptions, (2) pre-approved broker retainer per country, (3) 24-hour mandatory reporting, (4) embassy contact list, (5) quarterly high-risk review. Scenario training for all international staff. Board within 30 days.
Update the annual ABC training and circulate guidance.
Add a facilitation-payments section to the annual training deck. Circulate the AFP position to country managers. Update the ABC policy to name facilitation payments as prohibited. Addresses the gap without a full overhaul.
File the incident report and move on.
The system worked. You refused, the equipment cleared, the file closes. Move on to the three other matters on your desk. If it happens again, you'll handle it the same way.
Alexa drafts the Facilitation Payments Policy over the following two weeks. 14 pages, with appendices covering 6 countries where Meridian operates or is tendering.
The policy has five pillars: prohibition, pre-approved alternatives, mandatory reporting, country-specific protocols, quarterly review. I'm proposing a customs broker retainer in Ghana, Nigeria, and Kenya — approximately A$8,000 per year per jurisdiction.
Twenty-four thousand a year for customs brokers?
The Ghana incident cost us fifty-four thousand in five days, Sarah. A retainer means the broker is already engaged when the next shipment arrives. No delay, no scramble, no Thursday meetings.
Put it in the board paper. I'll support it.
The Adequate Procedures Guidance sets six principles for adequate procedures under Criminal Code s.70.5A: proportionate procedures, top-level commitment, risk assessment, due diligence, communication/training, monitoring/review. Your policy addresses all six. The customs broker retainer is proportionate. Board approval demonstrates top-level commitment. Country-specific protocols show risk assessment. Quarterly review ensures monitoring. This is what defensible compliance looks like.
Alexa updates the ABC training module to include a section on facilitation payments and emails the AFP's published position to all country managers.
Alexa, I read the AFP guidance you sent. It's useful — but it doesn't tell me what to do next time a customs official asks for money. Do I call you? Do I call a broker? Who's paying for the broker?
Call me. Same as this time.
And if it's a Friday afternoon and you're not answering your phone?
Training is one of the Attorney-General's six Adequate Procedures elements for adequate procedures — but only one. Without operational protocols (who to call, pre-approved alternatives, budget authority), training creates awareness without enabling compliance. The AFP has stated it will consider the adequacy of a company's procedures when deciding whether to prosecute. A company that trained its staff but gave them no practical tools to refuse facilitation payments would struggle to argue its procedures were 'adequate'.
Alexa files the report. Thorough: dates, amounts, the official's words, the broker resolution. Saved to the compliance drive, marked 'closed'.
Six months later, Meridian's Lagos team faces the same situation. Equipment held at Apapa Port. A 'facilitation fee' of $3,500. The site manager — hired three months ago, never briefed on Ghana — pays from petty cash and records it as 'port handling charges'. No policy tells him to report.
Two months later, the same official asks for $7,000. He pays again. Then $12,000. By the time London notices, four payments totalling $26,500 are buried in the project accounts.
Criminal Code s.70.5A makes failure to prevent bribery a corporate offence. The only defence is 'adequate procedures'. An incident report without follow-up isn't a procedure — it's evidence you knew the risk and chose not to address it. The Adequate Procedures Guidance requires them to be 'clear, practical, accessible, effectively implemented and enforced'. A policy in your head fails every count.
Case Outcome
The $2,000 ask at Tema Port tested whether you could hold the line under pressure, propose alternatives, and turn a crisis into systemic change.
Criminal Code s.141.1
Bribing another person
Criminal Code s.70.2
Bribing foreign officials
Criminal Code s.70.5A
Failure to prevent
Adequate Procedures Guidance
Facilitation payments
Adequate Procedures Elements
Adequate procedures
AFP Position
Prosecution approach
Take the 5-question knowledge check to record your completion.
Take the Module Quiz →A whistleblower flags undeclared gifts to an evaluation panel member during a live A$5.4M procurement.