Example:

A contractor is importing equipment into a country where it is constructing a project.  An important delivery of equipment is withheld in customs.  The contractor needs the equipment at the beginning of the following week, otherwise the project construction will be delayed.  The cost of delay to the contractor would be $50,000 per day.  The contractor appeals to the customs official handling the matter to deal with the application.  The customs official indicates that he will release the equipment that day if he is paid a “speed up” fee of $200.  The contractor checks the legitimacy of the fee, and finds that no such fee is legally payable.  The contractor has completed all necessary paperwork, and has paid the relevant import duties and fees, so the equipment should be released without this “speed up” fee.  It is clear that this fee is an unofficial payment demanded by the official for his personal benefit.  The contractor needs the equipment urgently, and the fee of $200 is much lower than the daily additional cost of $50,000 if the equipment is unavailable.  The contractor therefore makes the payment, and the equipment is released.

Explanation:

This example is similar in concept to the previous example.  Both examples have been given as the previous example deals with a major event of extortion by a key participant on the project (the project engineer) whereas this example deals with extortion of a much smaller amount by a public official who has no role on the project.  However, the outcome is the same.  The fact that the second example involves a small amount of cash does not change the underlying principle.  

The customs official should release the equipment without demanding a personal additional payment.  In demanding such payment in order to properly perform his function, the official is both abusing his power and extorting payment from the contractor. 

If the contractor makes the payment to the customs official in order that he releases the equipment, the contractor will be liable for bribery.  In this situation, there is no threat by the customs official of any personal harm to any of the personnel of the contractor, so the defence of payment to avoid personal harm is not available.  It is unlikely to be a defence if you make the payment in order to avoid financial harm.