There are two inescapable facts here;
1.BAeS (and other companies) conduct their business in a world where backhanders are routine.
2.MoD, and other Government departments, know this.
What could have nipped this in the bud? Both sides acknowledging it? But, because the latter (Government) stood back, perhaps for a higher reason, BAeS had to decide what to do. They chose denial, which was always implausible. If they had challenged the Government (and Customers) to support them, and offered what one assumes is a raft of supporting evidence that both knew, then I suppose they would have been concerned about future business.
I imagine there are many in MoD who simply don’t know what to make of this. On the very first project I managed when I joined MoD(PE) I inherited a little problem. Briefly, a well known company told me I’d have to agree to a backhander to an African supplier if my entire aircraft fleet was not to be grounded inside 2 weeks, with no chance of a solution inside 2 years. I was asked how much I’d be prepared to cough up. Of course, it was simply subsumed within the “quotation” and only one person in the Service knew what happened – all they saw was a sudden and inexplicable improvement in front line availability. A minor episode, and I don’t imagine for one minute it is unique. Point being, the company, who had known me for about ten minutes, felt entirely comfortable revealing this side of their business. Not in the same league as BAeS’s billions, but the same principle.