The recent Schabir Shaik trial has created a number of positive spinoffs for our country.

First and foremost, it has to be said that the trial verdict, followed by the decision to prosecute Jacob Zuma, has provided a significant boost to the confidence levels of the general public in the criminal justice system, as well as the executive leadership of our country.

It also shows quite clearly that nobody, irrespective of position in South African society, is above the law.

The trial has helped restore confidence in the independence of the judiciary as well as respect for the rule of law.

A further benefit that needs to be highlighted is the fact that the trial has created ground rules for the manner in which the private sector does business with the government.

Businessmen will need to seriously consider the implications of Judge Hilary Squires' views on the Zuma loans scenario, before providing gifts or other benefits to politicians or decision makers.

It is important to point out that Squires has convicted Shaik in terms of the 1992 Corruption Act, which is a very limited enactment. It was notoriously difficult for the criminal justice authorities to secure convictions under that legislation, which has subsequently been replaced by the (far stronger) Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, which came into effect in April last year.

In order to secure a conviction, the state had to prove that Shaik provided Zuma with benefits that were not legally due in exchange for, or as a reward for, an act or omission by Zuma, which was designed to further the interests of Shaik and/or his companies.

Under the new act, the definition of what constitutes corruption has been dramatically extended and says "any person who directly or indirectly gives or accepts or agrees or offers to give or accept any gratification from another person with the purpose of acting personally or influencing another person to act in a manner that amounts to an illegal, dishonest, or unauthorised action or an abuse of authority, a breach of trust, or a violation of a legal duty, is guilty of the offence of corruption".

The new corruption act no longer refers to "a benefit which was not legally due"; it refers to the term "gratification".

The term "gratification" has purposefully been very widely defined.

It incorporates money, donations, indemnities, offers of employment, discharge of a debt, the granting of favours, rights or privileges, aid, votes, consent or benefits of any kind.

There are very few forms of payment for corrupt activities that will not fall within the ambit of the new act.

The defence that was raised by Shaik, namely that the funds that he advanced to Zuma were loans, is nothing new in corruption matters.

Whenever evidence is uncovered that shows a particular decision maker has received payments in questionable circumstances, the excuse that is commonly offered is that the payment constituted a loan that will be paid back.

But during corruption investigations, when forensic investigators drill down into the detail of the loan, they invariably find that there is no formal contract or agreement, and usually repayment has not commenced.

The plot usually thickens when inquiries are made as to the nature of the payment, where it is often established that the transfer of funds for the so-called loan comprised a vast amount of money (usually cash in an envelope) being handed over in a restaurant or a bar.

All-expenses-paid holidays, luxury cars, employment of family or friends, and even sexual favours are other preferred methods of payment.

In the Shaik trial, Squires actually found that on the evidence before him, he was satisfied that there was no loan. He held that "even if these could be regarded as loans, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the basis on which they were made would, in our view, unarguably amount to a 'benefit' within the meaning of the word in the corruption act".

The loan excuse is what is known in forensic circles as a rationalisation. This is something a corrupt party will do to make himself feel better about the corrupt activity he has engaged in. Usually, this entails relabelling the corrupt activity.

For example, you take a bribe or a kickback and you call it a "loan", a "commission", a "referral fee" or a "facilitation fee". By doing this, the offender removes the moral reprehensibility from his conduct and is often able to sleep better at night. Eventually, the corrupt party will convince himself that there was nothing irregular in his conduct.

Fortunately, the Shaik judgment and the new corruption act have redefined the boundaries for the "ethically challenged" members of our society.

Corruption is not restricted to businessmen bribing government officials. Decision makers at various levels across all industries are being targeted and corrupted.

It is also not a phenomenon that is unique to South Africa or our continent. The World Bank estimates that approximately $1 trillion (R6.7 trillion) is paid annually in bribes. It is almost impossible to accurately gauge the real extent of fraud and corruption in South Africa, as most dishonesty is never detected and is seldom reported.

The reality is that corruption has reached near epidemic levels in this country, with bribery and kickbacks fast becoming a business norm and a regular feature of day-to-day business transactions.

Businessmen are being pragmatic and paying so-called facilitation fees (a less reprehensible description for a kickback) to ensure that they land the lucrative contracts they are competing for.

Black economic empowerment preferential procurement policies have created large-scale fronting, as traditional white service providers are appointing tea ladies and drivers as executives, to ensure compliance with black empowerment equity requirements, with no real change in the de facto ownership behind the scenes.

Organisations are paying more than they should for goods or services as a result of backhanders being paid to often poorly remunerated employees or officials by unscrupulous service providers.

These dishonest entrepreneurs do homework on the decision makers in organisations, not merely to determine interests or hobbies to entice the individual; they even go so far as to establish if there are vices or weaknesses they can exploit.

We often see businessmen becoming instant millionaires because they have secured a monopoly of work in a particular area by paying bribes to the individuals who dictate the flow of business in that area.

Cars are provided to junior officials by corrupt suppliers in exchange for orders - often at inflated prices. In the past, corrupt staff members were simply allowed to resign and leave the organisation, often moving to new entities where they simply resumed their corrupt activities.

This problem has been addressed by the Prevention and Combating of Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, which obliges individuals who occupy positions of authority in organisations to report to the SA Police Service fraud, theft, acts of corruption, extortion, forgery or uttering where the value exceeds R100 000.

The new legislation reflects the government's commitment to eradicating corruption. The act makes provision for extraterritorial jurisdiction in that South African entities that pay bribes in foreign states can now be prosecuted locally, notwithstanding the fact that the corrupt activity took place outside our borders.

The final aspect that needs emphasis is that the new legislation makes provision for the blacklisting of individuals and entities that have been convicted of corrupt activities.

These parties will then be barred from doing business with the government. This aspect of the legislation will have severe ramifications for Shaik's group of companies, which have enjoyed a range of lucrative government contracts.

The message from the judgment and the new legislation is clear: corrupt parties will be prosecuted and punished. Business people will have to ensure that they act within the letter of the law or face harsh consequences.

In future, decision makers in both the public and private sectors will be well advised to "beware of false friends bearing gifts".

Steven Powell is a director of forensics at Sonnenberg Hoffmann Galombik and a former specialist fraud prosecutor in the Cape high court

With acknowledgements to Steven Powell and the Business Report.