There is a consensus that arbitration has become a widely accepted method of international dispute resolution. Thus, as an institution, it should also serve a wider purpose of general good for the society. It is uncontested and incontestable that corruption is an obvious evil that hinders economic and political development of the society. The goal of this article is to examine the recent case law, in particular the judgments rendered in France and in England over the last two years, dealing with the arbitrators’ duty to combat corruption and the judicial review of arbitral awards on the ground of public policy, which includes the fight against corruption. The differences in approach between national judges to annulment of or refusal to enforce arbitral awards based on allegations of corruption shed light on the importance of the choice of the seat of arbitration.