Forty Containers at Apapa
Baltic Freight A/S is a Danish logistics group with subsidiaries in the United Kingdom and the United States. Its Lagos subsidiary is holding forty containers of temperature-sensitive pharmaceutical excipients belonging to a UK-listed client. A customs officer at Apapa tells the local operations manager that the entry documentation contains an error and that release within 48 hours requires payment of the naira equivalent of USD 350 per container to his assistant, in cash, with no receipt. Without payment, the officer says, the containers will sit for three to four weeks. Demurrage runs at USD 180 per container per day. The client contract carries a penalty of USD 40,000 per day after day ten, and the material expires in thirty days. Cargo value is USD 6 million. The country managing director says this happens every month and that the local port agent usually handles it, invoicing Baltic Freight for documentation handling in a lump sum that also covers legitimate services. Group policy prohibits facilitation payments without exception. The US parent is FCPA-covered.
1. Does the FCPA facilitation-payment exception save this payment? Analyse it, and set out the UK and Danish exposure that the exception does nothing about.
Read the worked answer
The exception. The FCPA permits payments to a foreign official to expedite or secure the performance of routine governmental action. Routine action means action ordinarily performed by an official in a non-discretionary capacity: processing permits and licences, customs clearance, loading and unloading cargo, police protection, mail, utilities. The payment must be to speed a ministerial act, not to influence a decision the official has discretion to make.
Application here. Three features take the payment outside the exception. First, the officer has asserted a documentation error and therefore claimed a discretion to reject or release; paying him is buying the exercise of that discretion, not expediting a ministerial step. Second, the cash is to an assistant, unrecorded, which is the signature of a corrupt rather than an administrative payment. Third, if the error is invented, the demand is extortion, and paying it still involves influencing official action. An experienced examiner will say the exception is arguable at best and should not be relied on.
UK exposure. The Bribery Act has no facilitation-payment exception. If a UK-connected person participates, sections 1 and 6 are engaged, and Baltic's UK subsidiary, as part of an organisation carrying on business in the UK, brings section 7 failure-to-prevent into play for conduct anywhere in the world. There is no de minimis amount.
Danish exposure. Denmark criminalises active and passive bribery of foreign officials without a facilitation exception, so the parent's own jurisdiction is exposed.
Books and records. Even where the FCPA exception applies, the payment must be recorded accurately. Booking it inside a port agent's lump-sum invoice for documentation handling is a separate violation.
2. Give the operational decision. How should the port-agent channel be handled, and if the company ultimately pays under protest, what must be recorded and disclosed?
Read the worked answer
Immediate steps. Escalate to group legal and compliance the same day; the local managing director cannot authorise this. Require the operations manager to get the alleged error in writing from customs, because a real error disappears under scrutiny and a fabricated one does not. Instruct refusal of cash. Simultaneously, engage an independent clearing agent or the port's official customer service channel, notify the client honestly that cargo is delayed and why, and put alternatives in motion: bonded storage, rerouting, partial release, insurer notification on the perishable cargo.
Cost the risk honestly. The delay cost is real but bounded: roughly USD 7,200 per day in demurrage plus penalties after day ten. A UK Bribery Act conviction carries an unlimited fine, reputational damage, and possible exclusion from public tenders, and the group's own policy says no. The comparison is not close, and the analysis should be written down because a later reviewer will ask why the company accepted a large loss.
The port-agent channel. An agent that bundles legitimate and illegitimate charges into one invoice is a laundering mechanism, not a service. Diligence the agent, require itemised invoices with receipts, prohibit lump sums and cash disbursements, cap and pre-approve disbursements, audit the agent's books for Baltic transactions, and put anti-bribery and audit rights into the agency contract. If the agent has been paying for months, that is an existing books-and-records and possibly bribery issue requiring a look-back.
If payment happens anyway, record the gross amount, the date, the recipient and the true description in the ledger, report it through the whistleblowing or escalation channel, notify the client if the contract requires it, and treat it as a control failure to remediate. Duress is a narrow defence, not a policy.
3. Design the programme changes that would stop this recurring every month rather than treating this shipment as a one-off.
Read the worked answer
Separate the demand from the payment. Build a standing instruction that any official request for money is reported to group legal within 24 hours and answered from the centre. Publish an escalation matrix with named contacts and out-of-hours numbers, so a shift supervisor in Lagos is never the person making the call alone.
Remove the mechanism. Ban cash disbursements by agents; require itemised invoices with official receipts; pre-approve all disbursements above a low threshold; and put a contractual right to audit agent records into every agency and clearing agreement. If an agent will not accept that, do not use the agent.
Create legitimate alternatives before the crisis. Maintain vetted alternative clearing agents and bonded-warehouse options, understand the official appeal and complaint routes at the port, and engage the customs authority and industry association at management level so the company has a relationship that is not transactional.
Measure it. Track demands logged, payments refused, days of delay, demurrage and penalty cost, agent invoices rejected, and training completion by site. Report those numbers to the board quarterly alongside the bribery risk register; a flat 'zero incidents' line in a port where staff say it happens monthly is itself a red flag.
Contract for it. Put anti-bribery obligations, audit and termination rights, and a no-facilitation representation into client and agent contracts, and tell the client what the company does when a demand arises, before it arises.
Train the people who actually face it. Shipping clerks and warehouse supervisors, not just managers, in the local language, with scenarios and a clear statement that refusing to pay will not be held against them and that the company will absorb the delay cost.