8 ms·

I don't know about the US, but in Australia, our foreign bribery laws explicitly exempt "facilitation payments", i.e. bribes that are customarily paid to grease

I don't know about the US, but in Australia, our foreign bribery laws explicitly exempt "facilitation payments", i.e. bribes that are customarily paid to grease the wheels of bureaucracy and get routine government actions done. However, that certainly wouldn't cover anything like this alleged rape doxxing, and it also wouldn't cover bribes intended to secure new business, which are presumably extremely common in countries like India.

dbuxton 9y ago
The FCPA similarly differentiates. However the practical problem is that running a defense based on whether a certain activity was a facilitation payment (to secure the performance of a "routine government action") means you essentially have to admit that the potentially unlawful activity actually took place, and you move onto generally very treacherous ground. For that reason most companies don't go that route. In any case as others have noted it's not relevant here because getting someone's medical records isn't a service that you're entitled to.
tryingagainbro 9y ago
However, that certainly wouldn't cover anything like this alleged rape doxxing The article didn't say anything about the rape case. Getting her info could have cost less than $100, but staying in business in certain countries could run in tens of millions.
- saghm 9y ago
  > The article didn't say anything about the rape case. From TFA: "Reuters in June reported that Uber had hired a law firm to investigate how it obtained the medical records of an Indian woman who was raped by an Uber driver in 2014." > Getting her info could have cost less than $100, but staying in business in certain countries could run in tens of millions. I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make here. Regardless of the calculus, it was morally bankrupt and probably illegal.
  - tryingagainbro 9y ago
    I believe the link changed, it was a WSJ article first with no mention of the rape case. I doubted that they'd be investigated for small sums of payments.
    - saghm 9y ago
      Fair enough. Now that I reread the whole article, the mentioning of the incident does actually seem a bit out of place in this as well; it doesn't explicitly connect it to the preceding paragraph or the rest of the paragraph.

dbuxton 9y ago

The FCPA similarly differentiates. However the practical problem is that running a defense based on whether a certain activity was a facilitation payment (to secure the performance of a "routine government action") means you essentially have to admit that the potentially unlawful activity actually took place, and you move onto generally very treacherous ground. For that reason most companies don't go that route. In any case as others have noted it's not relevant here because getting someone's medical records isn't a service that you're entitled to.

tryingagainbro 9y ago

However, that certainly wouldn't cover anything like this alleged rape doxxing The article didn't say anything about the rape case. Getting her info could have cost less than $100, but staying in business in certain countries could run in tens of millions.

saghm 9y ago
> The article didn't say anything about the rape case. From TFA: "Reuters in June reported that Uber had hired a law firm to investigate how it obtained the medical records of an Indian woman who was raped by an Uber driver in 2014." > Getting her info could have cost less than $100, but staying in business in certain countries could run in tens of millions. I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make here. Regardless of the calculus, it was morally bankrupt and probably illegal.
- tryingagainbro 9y ago
  I believe the link changed, it was a WSJ article first with no mention of the rape case. I doubted that they'd be investigated for small sums of payments.
  - saghm 9y ago
    Fair enough. Now that I reread the whole article, the mentioning of the incident does actually seem a bit out of place in this as well; it doesn't explicitly connect it to the preceding paragraph or the rest of the paragraph.