that “the corruption situation in Singapore remains firmly under control”. Transparency International ranks Singapore as fourth out of 180 countries in its corruption perceptions index.
Where a company is concerned, bribery seldom is committed by a renegade executive on his own initiative. There are usually people in the corporate hierarchy who know about and approve of the giving of bribes.These people are known in law as abettors under the Penal Code. There are three sorts of abettors.
Abel, being an instigator of corruption, would be liable as an abettor. Again, the potential punishment is the same for the instigator. Abel might even get a harsher sentence than Baker since he is Baker’s boss. It has happened in hierarchical organisations like the Singapore Armed Forces and the Singapore Civil Defence Force .
There is no reason to assume that the principle does not apply to private companies. So if Abel, the managing director, knows that his sales manager Baker is paying bribes to get business, Abel’s silence may be interpreted by Baker as authorisation to carry on doing so. They can be prosecuted here if they commit acts outside Singapore which would be an offence if done in Singapore.
This is a question of fact. CPIB presumably will keep sniffing around until they discover how far up the rot goes.The decision of whether or not to prosecute lies with the Attorney-General as Public Prosecutor. This is an exercise ofIn 1997, Keppel Corporation pleaded guilty to paying S$8.53 million in bribes to a technical manager of a company based in England to get business. Keppel was fined S$300,000.