Skip to main content
Governance Authority
Category: Anti-Bribery and Corruption

Passive Bribery

Also known as: Receiving a bribe
Simply put

Passive bribery is the offence committed by the person who is on the receiving end of a bribe, rather than the one offering it. It typically covers requesting, receiving, agreeing to receive, or accepting a bribe. It is the counterpart to 'active bribery', which refers to offering, promising, or giving a bribe.

Formal definition

Passive bribery generally refers to the offence committed by the party that requests, receives, agrees to receive, or accepts a bribe, as distinguished from active bribery (offering, promising, or giving a bribe). The distinction identifies the role played by each party in a corrupt transaction; either party may initiate the arrangement, and both forms are typically treated as offences under applicable anti-bribery regimes. The precise elements, scope, and penalties depend on the relevant jurisdiction and statute (for example, under the UK Bribery Act both forms are addressed), so this characterisation should be read as a general framing rather than a definitive statement of any single legal standard. This entry is educational and not legal or compliance advice.

Why it matters

The distinction between passive and active bribery matters because anti-bribery regimes typically treat both sides of a corrupt transaction as offences. Focusing compliance attention only on employees who might offer improper payments to others can leave a blind spot around the equally serious risk that staff, agents, or officials request, agree to receive, or accept a bribe. In many jurisdictions, the recipient's conduct is a distinct offence in its own right, and the evidence indicates that either party may be the one to initiate the arrangement.

For governance and compliance professionals, this framing shapes how policies, training, and controls are designed. A code of conduct or anti-bribery policy that addresses only the giving of bribes may fail to make clear that soliciting or accepting them is equally prohibited. Recognising passive bribery as a separate concept supports controls around conflicts of interest, gifts and hospitality, procurement, and vendor relationships, where the risk is often that an individual accepts something of value in exchange for improper favour.

Because the precise elements, scope, and penalties depend on the applicable jurisdiction and statute, organisations generally cannot rely on a single universal standard. Under the UK Bribery Act, for example, both active and passive forms are addressed, but the specific requirements vary across legal systems. Compliance programmes typically need to be calibrated to the regimes relevant to the entity's operations rather than to a generic definition.

Who it's relevant to

Chief Compliance Officers
Those responsible for anti-bribery and corruption programmes need to ensure policies, training, and controls address the receiving side of bribery, not only the offering side. Recognising passive bribery as a distinct offence helps frame controls around gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest, and the acceptance of improper benefits by staff or agents.
General Counsel and Legal Teams
Legal advisers assess how anti-bribery statutes in the relevant jurisdictions treat the party who requests or accepts a bribe. Because the elements, scope, and penalties vary by jurisdiction and statute, counsel typically map exposure against the specific regimes that apply to the entity rather than a generic definition.
Boards and Audit or Risk Committees
Board-level oversight of the ethics and compliance framework benefits from understanding that both forms of bribery are typically treated as offences. This supports the committee's challenge of whether management's controls adequately cover the risk that employees or intermediaries solicit or accept improper payments.
Procurement and Vendor Management Functions
Staff involved in sourcing, tendering, and supplier relationships operate where the risk of accepting a bribe in exchange for favourable treatment can arise. Awareness of passive bribery reinforces the need for controls and clear conduct expectations at points where an individual might be tempted to request or accept something of value.

Inside Passive Bribery

Receipt or solicitation element
Passive bribery typically refers to the demand, request, agreement to receive, or acceptance of an undue advantage by the recipient, as distinct from active bribery, which concerns the offering, promising, or giving of such an advantage. The passive party is generally the one who receives or seeks the benefit.
Undue advantage
The benefit at issue may be pecuniary or non-pecuniary and need not be limited to cash. Whether an advantage is 'undue' generally depends on the applicable legal regime, the recipient's role, and whether the benefit was legitimately due; specifics vary by jurisdiction and are fact-dependent.
Recipient's official or fiduciary position
Passive bribery is commonly associated with a person acting in a public function, though many regimes also address private-sector or commercial bribery. The recipient's capacity and the expectation that they act, or refrain from acting, in relation to their duties are typically central to the concept.
Improper performance or intent
The concept generally involves a link between the advantage and the improper performance of a function or activity, or an intention to influence the recipient's conduct. The precise mental and conduct elements depend on the wording of the relevant statute or regulation.
Jurisdictional and regime variation
Whether passive bribery is separately defined, how it is labelled, and the elements required to establish it vary across legal systems and between public-sector and private-sector contexts. Some frameworks treat passive and active bribery as distinct offences; others address them together.

Common questions

Answers to the questions practitioners most commonly ask about Passive Bribery.

Is passive bribery a lesser offence than active bribery because the recipient is merely accepting?
No. The terms passive and active describe the direction of the transaction, not the seriousness or culpability of the conduct. Passive bribery generally refers to the request, agreement to receive, or acceptance of an undue advantage by the person being bribed, while active bribery generally refers to the offering, promising, or giving of that advantage. In many jurisdictions both are treated as distinct offences with comparable gravity, and the receiving party can face equal or greater exposure depending on the facts and the applicable statute. Whether and how each is penalised varies by jurisdiction and legal framework, so this description is educational rather than a statement of any specific law.
Does passive bribery require that the recipient actually take money or a physical gift?
Not necessarily. Under many anti-corruption regimes the concept of an undue advantage can extend beyond cash or tangible gifts to a broad range of benefits, and the offence may be framed to capture requesting or agreeing to receive an advantage even where nothing has yet changed hands. The precise scope of what counts as an advantage, and whether an agreement alone suffices, depends entirely on the wording of the applicable statute and how it is interpreted in the relevant jurisdiction. This entry describes the general concept and does not state the elements of any particular law; specific cases turn on facts and legal advice.
Which function should own the controls that address passive bribery risk within an organisation?
Responsibility is typically distributed across the lines of defence rather than sitting with a single function. Management in the business (first line) generally owns the day-to-day controls, such as gift and hospitality approval processes and conflict-of-interest disclosures. The compliance function (second line) typically designs the anti-bribery framework, sets policy, and monitors adherence, while internal audit (third line) provides independent assurance over control design and operating effectiveness. The board or its designated committee generally holds oversight accountability but does not perform operational controls. The specific allocation depends on the entity's size, structure, and risk profile.
How might an organisation reflect passive bribery in its risk assessment?
Organisations commonly evaluate passive bribery as one facet of broader bribery and corruption risk, considering the inherent risk arising from factors such as sector, geography, interactions with public officials, and roles with decision-making authority, then assessing residual risk after existing controls are applied. Likelihood and impact are typically assessed separately. The design of controls (whether they are capable of addressing the risk) and their operating effectiveness (whether they function as intended in practice) are also distinct considerations. How this is documented depends on the organisation's chosen risk methodology and its risk appetite, and reflects management judgement rather than any prescribed formula.
What controls do organisations typically use to mitigate passive bribery risk?
Common controls include a clear anti-bribery and corruption policy, defined thresholds and approval workflows for gifts and hospitality received, conflict-of-interest declarations, segregation of duties in decision-making, whistleblowing and reporting channels, and periodic training for staff in higher-risk roles. Monitoring activities and independent assurance may test whether these controls operate effectively over time. The appropriate mix and intensity of controls should be proportionate to the assessed risk and vary by entity type, sector, and jurisdiction; there is no single mandatory set of measures that applies universally.
How does passive bribery relate to legal requirements versus voluntary standards?
Whether particular conduct constitutes passive bribery is a matter of binding law, and the elements, defences, and penalties are determined by the statutes and regulations of the relevant jurisdiction. Voluntary standards, codes, and best-practice frameworks may inform how an organisation designs its prevention programme, but they do not themselves define the offence. Because obligations vary by jurisdiction, sector, and entity type, organisations should identify which laws apply to them and seek qualified legal advice on specific situations. This entry is educational and is not legal, audit, or compliance advice.

Common misconceptions

Passive bribery means the recipient did nothing and is therefore less culpable.
In this context 'passive' describes the recipient side of a bribery transaction, not inaction. Soliciting, requesting, agreeing to receive, or accepting an undue advantage can be treated as culpable conduct in its own right, and consequences depend on the applicable jurisdiction and facts.
Only cash payments can amount to passive bribery.
The advantage involved may be pecuniary or non-pecuniary. Whether a given benefit qualifies as an 'undue advantage' generally depends on the relevant legal regime, the recipient's role, and the surrounding circumstances rather than the form the benefit takes.
Passive bribery only concerns public officials.
While the concept is frequently discussed in relation to public functions, many legal regimes also address bribery in the private or commercial sector. The scope of who can be a passive party depends on how the applicable law is drafted.

Best practices

Confirm how the applicable jurisdiction and any relevant sector rules define passive bribery, since elements, labels, and whether it is a separate offence vary; treat definitions as fact- and jurisdiction-specific rather than universal.
Design compliance policies that expressly address the recipient side of bribery, covering solicitation, requesting, and acceptance of undue advantages, not only the offering or giving of benefits.
Establish clear gifts, hospitality, and conflicts-of-interest controls with defined thresholds and approval routes so employees can distinguish legitimate benefits from undue advantages, recognizing that advantages may be non-pecuniary.
Assign clear accountability: management typically owns the design and operation of anti-bribery controls, while the board or relevant committee provides oversight, and internal audit or a comparable function provides independent assurance over effectiveness.
Provide role-specific training and confidential reporting channels so that individuals who are solicited for or offered an advantage know how to refuse, document, and escalate the matter.
Consult qualified legal and compliance advisers on specific fact patterns and jurisdictional requirements, as this entry is educational and not legal, audit, or compliance advice.