More anti-corruption legislation could be on the way just three months before the implementation of the Bribery Act, a Midlands legal expert has warned.

Charles Arrand, partner in the Litigation and Regulatory team in the Birmingham office of DLA Piper, urged businesses to review their procedures and warned how the position on plea bargaining was "mired in confusion".

His comments followed the conviction of BAE Systems over a Tanzanian purchase of radar equipment.

The company was ordered to pay £725,000 in fines and costs at Southwark Crown Court after pleading guilty to a breach of the Companies Act 1985 by failing to keep accurate accounting records.

Questioning why there was no corruption charge when the inference was that bribes had been paid by an agent, the judge, Mr Justice Bean, heard that the prosecution had no evidence to show that BAE took part in a conspiracy to corrupt decision makers or that the agent had bribed officials. 

However, the end result was that the Government of Tanzania paid an inflated price for the radar equipment, with the agent's fees representing 30 per cent of the contract price.

BAE will make an ex gratia payment to Tanzania of £30 million, less the financial penalty imposed by the judge. 

As part of the deal, the Serious Fraud Office will terminate all ongoing investigations into BAE - it had in particular faced long-standing media allegations of inappropriate behaviour in defence sales to Saudi Arabia.

Mr Arrand cautioned: "It is now more important than ever that companies and individuals considering whether to self-report or co-operate with the SFO take specialist legal advice as early as possible.

"With the implementation of the Bribery Act 2010 imminent it is vital that companies review their anti-bribery and corruption programmes. The best way to avoid coming under the spotlight in future is to ensure that they have 'adequate procedures' in place to prevent bribery.

"The BAE sentence throws even more confusion into the arena for the future of plea negotiations. 

"What determines whether companies are charged with corruption offences? When is a Companies Act accounting offence an appropriate charge? What determines whether a civil settlement is deemed an appropriate outcome? When can companies and individuals expect immunity from further prosecutions? Can co-operating defendants expect to go to prison? Is it just a matter of time before a judge flatly refuses to accept the terms or settlement figure in a plea agreement?

"In light of recent Government cuts the SFO will have fewer resources at its disposal to investigate and prosecute companies and individuals.

"Now more than ever it needs companies and individuals to come forward and co-operate. Yet it expects them to participate in a system which is clouded with uncertainty and disapproval of the courts. Whatever agreement is reached with the prosecution, the judges will have the final word on sentencing and they are clearly going to continue to question every deal and recommendation for sentencing which the SFO puts before them. 

"Further clarity, transparency and guidance is urgently needed - legislation may be required to achieve this - or the momentum for self-reporting and co-operation will be lost."

Mr Arrand said it was hoped that publication in the New Year of the Attorney General's guidelines and guidance for prosecutors in connection with the new Bribery Act would shed further light on matters.