Skip to content

CS Professional · Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) - Principles and Practice · Business Ethics, Code of Conduct and Anti-Bribery

Kiran Pharma Ltd's sales executive, Mr Rao, is alleged to have offered an undue advantage to a government hospital purchase officer to win a tender. No prosecution has been launched against Mr Rao. For the purposes of section 9, which statement is correct?

An employee such as Mr Rao is presumed to have performed services for or on behalf of the company unless the contrary is proved. Also, the allegation of the offence suffices; prosecution or conviction of Mr Rao is not a precondition for treating the advantage as given.

  1. AThe company cannot be proceeded against until Mr Rao is convicted
  2. BThe company cannot be proceeded against unless Mr Rao is a director
  3. CMr Rao is presumed to have performed services for the company unless the contrary is proved, since he is an employeeCorrect
  4. DMr Rao is presumed not to be associated with the company unless the company admits it

Explanation

Section 9(2) treats a person as having given the advantage if alleged to have committed the section 8 offence, whether or not prosecuted. Explanation 3 presumes an employee performed services for the organisation unless the contrary is proved. So the conviction-first option is wrong.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Business Ethics, Code of Conduct and Anti-Bribery shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Business Ethics, Code of Conduct and Anti-BriberyFree diagnostic mock

More Business Ethics, Code of Conduct and Anti-Bribery questions