The Customs Release Fee

ISO 37001 defines bribery broadly: offering, promising, giving, or authorizing a financial or other advantage, directly or indirectly, to induce improper performance of a function or to obtain or retain business or another improper advantage. The standard does not carve out facilitation payments. A payment to an agent to speed clearance is still an advantage intended to influence official action, and the fact that it is small, customary, or tolerated under local law does not make it acceptable under the ABMS. The scope exclusion does not change the conduct's character; it merely leaves a high-risk activity outside the management system, which undermines the scope's credibility and will not protect the board. My advice: stop the payments immediately, investigate the 37 transactions and the agents, assess exposure and disclosure options with external counsel, revise the code and scope, and resource controls proportionate to the customs risk. 'Reasonable and proportionate' does not mean light controls for small cash payments in a high-risk channel; it means controls calibrated to the risk.

The sales director sits in the function with the strongest incentive to accelerate clearance and win business, so the role creates a structural conflict: the person responsible for the ABMS is also accountable for the activity most likely to generate bribery risk. ISO 37001 expects the ABMS function to have sufficient authority, competence, and direct access to the governing body. Those expectations are hard to meet when the owner reports through sales and depends on sales results. I would recommend appointing an ABMS owner who is not part of sales-for example, a compliance or legal lead reporting to the CEO and with a direct line to the board or audit committee. An ABMS committee should include operations, finance, HR, and country management to ensure the system reflects actual processes. The sales director can remain accountable for compliance in sales, but should not own the system that monitors sales. Document the appointment, authority, and reporting line.

A reminder email is awareness communication, not a corrective action. It does not investigate the 37 payments, identify the root cause, assess the agents, or change the conditions that allowed the payments to continue. ISO 37001 expects the organization to implement controls, monitor them, and act on nonconformities and incidents. A credible response would include: stop and review the payments; conduct risk-based due diligence on the facilitation agents; examine approval and finance controls; clarify the code and the scope; train staff on the revised rules; establish confidential reporting and investigation; monitor clearance payments and agent activity; and report to the board. If bribery is confirmed, consider consequence management and, with legal advice, self-disclosure. The email may form part of the communication plan, but treating it as the remedy would leave the same incentive, the same agent relationships, and the same weak oversight in place.