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

Trading in Influence

Also known as: Influence Peddling, Traffic of Influence
Simply put

Trading in influence is a form of corruption in which a person uses their influence over, or connections with, people in government or positions of power to obtain a benefit, typically in exchange for something of value. It generally involves a third party who trades on their perceived or actual sway over a decision-maker rather than the decision-maker being bribed directly. It is widely regarded as a form of corruption that can be difficult to capture and understand.

Formal definition

Trading in influence, also known as influence peddling, describes conduct in which a person offers, gives, solicits, or accepts an undue advantage in return for the improper exercise of real or supposed influence over a public official or decision-making authority. It is addressed as a corruption offence under certain international instruments, including the Council of Europe's Criminal Convention, and has been criminalized in some national frameworks; for example, sources indicate it was introduced as an offence into the Maldives Penal Code, reportedly effective 6 May 2021. Whether and how the conduct constitutes a criminal offence depends on the specific jurisdiction and applicable statute, and this entry is educational rather than legal advice. This definition addresses the concept generally and does not detail the elements, defenses, or penalties applicable in any particular legal system.

Why it matters

Trading in influence sits in a difficult grey zone of anti-corruption practice. Unlike direct bribery, where a decision-maker is paid to act, this conduct involves an intermediary who trades on real or perceived sway over an official. Because the influence may be only supposed rather than actual, and because the transaction is one step removed from the ultimate decision-maker, the conduct can be difficult to capture, define, and prosecute. For governance, risk, and compliance functions, this ambiguity is precisely why the concept demands attention: activities that resemble legitimate lobbying, advocacy, or consulting can, depending on facts and jurisdiction, cross into corrupt influence peddling.

The legal treatment of trading in influence varies significantly. It is addressed as a corruption offence under certain international instruments, including the Council of Europe's Criminal Convention, and has been criminalized in some national frameworks. Sources indicate, for example, that it was introduced as an offence into the Maldives Penal Code, reportedly effective 6 May 2021. However, whether and how the conduct amounts to a criminal offence depends entirely on the applicable statute in a given jurisdiction, and not all legal systems criminalize it in the same way, or at all. Compliance programs operating across borders therefore cannot assume uniform treatment.

For boards and compliance leaders, the practical significance lies in program design rather than in reciting statutory elements. Third-party intermediaries, agents, and advisors who market access to officials present heightened corruption risk, and the reputational and legal exposure can arise even where the underlying influence is illusory. Understanding the concept helps organizations calibrate due diligence, contracting controls, and monitoring for the kinds of arrangements most likely to give rise to this risk.

Who it's relevant to

Chief Compliance Officers
Compliance leaders are typically responsible for designing anti-corruption programs that address third-party and intermediary risk, where trading in influence most commonly arises. This includes due diligence on agents and consultants who offer access to officials, contractual controls, and monitoring. Because the offence is defined differently across jurisdictions, compliance officers generally need to map applicable local law rather than assume a single standard.
General Counsel and Legal Teams
Legal functions assess whether particular arrangements risk crossing from legitimate lobbying or advocacy into criminal influence peddling under the relevant statute. Given that the conduct is addressed by certain international instruments and criminalized in some but not all national frameworks, counsel must analyze the specific jurisdiction, applicable elements, and available defences on the facts. This entry is educational and not a substitute for that legal analysis.
Boards and Audit or Risk Committees
Boards and their committees exercise oversight of the organization's corruption risk and the effectiveness of the anti-bribery and anti-corruption program, rather than performing operational controls themselves. Understanding trading in influence as a distinct and hard-to-detect form of corruption helps directors ask informed questions about how management identifies and mitigates intermediary and influence-related exposure.
Internal Audit and Assurance Functions
Assurance providers may evaluate the design and operating effectiveness of controls intended to detect and prevent corrupt influence arrangements, such as third-party onboarding, payment approvals, and lobbying oversight. Because trading in influence can be difficult to capture, testing generally focuses on whether the organization's controls address the transactional patterns and intermediary relationships where the risk concentrates.
Government Relations and Business Development Teams
Personnel who engage with officials or retain intermediaries to do so operate closest to the conduct in question. Awareness of where legitimate advocacy may shade into influence peddling helps these teams escalate questionable arrangements and adhere to program controls. Whether any specific activity is lawful depends on the facts and the applicable jurisdiction, and warrants professional guidance.

Inside Trading in Influence

Improper Use of Influence
The core element involves a person leveraging their real or purported influence over a decision-maker, typically a public official, rather than the decision-maker directly receiving a benefit. The offence generally targets the intermediary who trades on their connections or perceived sway.
Undue Advantage
Trading in influence generally involves an undue advantage promised, offered, given, or requested in exchange for the exertion of influence. The advantage may be pecuniary or non-pecuniary and need not ultimately produce the intended outcome for the conduct to fall within scope in many formulations.
Real or Supposed Influence
A distinguishing feature is that the influence may be genuine or merely claimed. In many legal formulations it is immaterial whether the influence actually exists or whether it leads to the intended result, though the precise treatment varies by jurisdiction.
Active and Passive Forms
The concept is often framed in two directions: the active side (offering or giving an advantage to someone who claims influence) and the passive side (an intermediary requesting or accepting an advantage in return for exercising influence). Whether both sides are criminalised depends on the applicable legal regime.
Relationship to International Anti-Corruption Instruments
Trading in influence is addressed in certain international anti-corruption frameworks as a corruption-related offence distinct from direct bribery. The extent to which it is criminalised and how it is defined differs significantly across jurisdictions, and it is not uniformly adopted.
Distinction from Bribery
Unlike direct bribery, where a benefit is directed at the official making the decision, trading in influence centres on a third party who purports to be able to affect that decision through their connections. This intermediary role is the key differentiator.

Common questions

Answers to the questions practitioners most commonly ask about Trading in Influence.

Is trading in influence the same as bribery?
No, although the two are related and often addressed within the same anti-corruption frameworks. Bribery typically involves giving or receiving an undue advantage to influence the conduct of a person in the direct exercise of their own duties. Trading in influence, by contrast, generally targets the misuse of a person's real or supposed influence over a third party, often a public official, in exchange for an undue advantage. The distinguishing feature is the intermediary relationship: the recipient trades on their perceived ability to sway someone else's decision rather than making the decision themselves. That said, how each is defined and criminalized varies by jurisdiction, and some legal systems treat them under overlapping or separate provisions. This entry is educational and not legal advice; whether specific conduct falls within a given offense depends on the applicable law and the facts.
Does trading in influence only apply when the influence actually changes an official's decision?
Not typically. In many jurisdictions that criminalize trading in influence, the offense can be established regardless of whether the influence was actually exerted or produced the intended result. What is often relevant is the trading of real or supposed influence in exchange for an undue advantage, meaning even a claimed or non-existent ability to influence may be captured under certain formulations. Some regimes also cover both active conduct (offering the advantage) and passive conduct (soliciting or accepting it). Because the precise elements, including questions of intent and outcome, differ across legal systems, organizations should not assume a single standard applies universally. Consult the relevant statute and qualified counsel for how these elements are defined in a given jurisdiction.
How should a compliance function reflect trading in influence in its risk assessment?
Compliance teams generally treat trading in influence as a distinct corruption risk within a broader anti-bribery and corruption risk assessment, rather than folding it entirely into bribery. In practice this often means identifying scenarios involving intermediaries, consultants, agents, lobbyists, and others who may trade on connections to decision-makers, and assessing both the inherent risk and the residual risk after controls are considered. The assessment typically accounts for jurisdictional exposure, since not all legal systems criminalize the conduct in the same way or at all. Ownership of the risk assessment usually sits with the compliance or risk function, while the board or a designated committee generally retains oversight. The appropriate scope and methodology depend on the organization's profile and applicable law.
What controls help mitigate trading in influence risk in third-party relationships?
Controls in this area commonly focus on the intermediary layer, where trading in influence risk often concentrates. Typical measures include risk-based due diligence on agents, consultants, and lobbyists; scrutiny of the business rationale and legitimacy of services provided; clear contractual anti-corruption representations and audit rights; and monitoring of payments that appear disproportionate to the services rendered. Organizations frequently distinguish control design (whether a control is capable of addressing the risk) from operating effectiveness (whether it functions as intended over time), and test both. Accountability for executing these controls generally rests with management and the relevant business lines, with assurance functions providing independent review. The specific control set should be calibrated to the organization's risk profile and is not one-size-fits-all.
Who within the organization is accountable for overseeing trading in influence risk?
Accountability is typically distributed across the lines of defense rather than held by any single function. Business and operational management generally own and manage the risk day to day as the first line, including relationships with intermediaries. The compliance and risk functions, as the second line, usually set policy, provide guidance, and monitor. Internal audit, as the third line, generally provides independent assurance over the effectiveness of controls. The board or a designated committee typically holds oversight responsibility for the anti-corruption program as a whole but does not perform operational control activities. This allocation can vary with organizational structure and applicable governance requirements, and roles should be defined in the organization's own framework.
How can policies and training address trading in influence specifically?
Because trading in influence can be less intuitive than direct bribery, policies and training often benefit from addressing it explicitly rather than assuming a general anti-bribery policy covers it. Practical approaches include defining the conduct in accessible terms, using scenario-based examples involving intermediaries and claimed connections, and clarifying expectations around engaging consultants, lobbyists, or others who offer access to decision-makers. Training is generally tailored to higher-risk roles and functions. Policies typically link to related controls such as gifts and hospitality rules, due diligence procedures, and reporting channels. The appropriate content and depth depend on the organization's risk profile and the legal frameworks applicable to it; this entry does not substitute for tailored legal or compliance advice.

Common misconceptions

Trading in influence is simply another name for bribery.
While related, they are generally treated as distinct concepts. Bribery typically involves an advantage directed at the decision-maker, whereas trading in influence focuses on an intermediary who exploits real or claimed influence over that decision-maker. The precise legal boundary depends on the jurisdiction and the applicable statute.
The offence only applies if the influence is real and the desired outcome is achieved.
Under many legal formulations, it is immaterial whether the influence genuinely exists or whether the intended result is obtained; the improper trading of purported influence may itself fall within scope. However, this treatment varies, and whether a given set of facts constitutes an offence depends on the specific law and requires professional judgment.
Legitimate lobbying and advocacy automatically amount to trading in influence.
Lawful representation, lobbying, and advisory services are generally distinct from trading in influence, which is characterised by an undue advantage exchanged for the improper exercise of influence. Where the line falls is fact-specific and jurisdiction-dependent, and organisations should assess arrangements against applicable law rather than assume all influence-related activity is prohibited.

Best practices

Confirm how trading in influence is defined and whether it is criminalised in each jurisdiction where the organisation operates, since adoption and scope vary and the applicable law, not a single international framework, determines the requirement.
Ensure the compliance function maintains policies that distinguish permissible lobbying, advocacy, and advisory engagements from arrangements involving an undue advantage exchanged for real or purported influence, and route uncertain cases to legal counsel.
Apply risk-based due diligence to intermediaries, agents, and consultants whose value proposition rests on connections or access to public officials, as these relationships can carry elevated exposure.
Have management design and operate controls, such as documented business justification, approval thresholds, and clear records for engagements involving officials, while the board or relevant committee retains oversight of the anti-corruption program's effectiveness.
Provide targeted training for staff in higher-risk roles so they can recognise conduct that may constitute trading in influence and understand escalation routes, treating this as educational support rather than a substitute for legal advice.
Integrate trading-in-influence scenarios into the enterprise corruption risk assessment, evaluating both inherent and residual risk, and periodically test whether relevant controls are operating effectively, not merely well designed.