Example:

A procurement manager of a contractor is managing a process to obtain competitive bids from sub-contractors.  One of the sub-contractors offers the procurement manager a fully paid three day visit to another country, including tickets to the Formula One Grand Prix, if the procurement manager awards the contract to the sub-contractor.  The procurement manager does award the contract to the sub-contractor, and subsequently attends the Grand Prix at the sub-contractor’s expense.

Explanation:

Entertainment is frequently used for corrupt reasons.  While the payment by one organisation of entertainment to the personnel of another organisation is not necessary corrupt, it will be treated as corrupt if the purpose of the entertainment is to influence the recipient to act improperly.

In the above example, it is highly likely that the entertainment would be treated by the courts as a bribe.  The entertainment was expensive and extravagant, was offered in circumstances where the recipient was responsible for making a decision in relation to a contract award to the payer, and the trip was linked to the contract being awarded to the sub-contractor.

Even if both parties denied that there was any such link, and claimed that the award was not designed to influence the manager, and did not influence the manager, the court is unlikely to accept this explanation.  The court is likely to infer that the only rational explanation for such generosity by the sub-contractor in these circumstances was a corrupt explanation.