Introduced to Parliament in the Queen's Speech in 2009 after several decades of reports and draft bills, the act received royal assent on 8 April 2010 following cross-party support.

[2] 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.

[4] 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 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".

[8] 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.

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.

[13] 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.

"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".

[15] The general offences also cover situations where the mere acceptance of such an advantage would constitute improperly performing relevant functions or activities.

[22] 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.

[19] 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.

[1] 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.

[32] 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.

As there had not been any judicial interpretation of the Act, 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.

[37] 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.