7 ms·

That is illegal according to US law. At my company, we are explicitly taught the opposite: paying "facilitation fees" is prohibited and illegal and that the emp

That is illegal according to US law. At my company, we are explicitly taught the opposite: paying "facilitation fees" is prohibited and illegal and that the employer will fire you and throw you under the bus if they find out you did so. They explicitly mention that this is not allowed even if it is the norm in the country in which you are doing business.

temp667 6y ago
"That is illegal according to US law." Can I ask if you are an attorney - because this is absolutely 100% false. You are spreading misinformation here. If your employer fires you for paying a facilitation fee to advance a routine govt action or travel then you should absolutely sue them.
- leecb 6y ago
  > The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 is a United States federal law that prohibits U.S. citizens and entities from bribing foreign government officials to benefit their business interests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act
  - closeparen 6y ago
    > Regarding payments to foreign officials, the act draws a distinction between bribery and facilitation or "grease payments", which may be permissible under the FCPA, but may still violate local laws. The primary distinction is that grease payments or facilitation payments are made to an official to expedite his performance of the routine duties he is already bound to perform
jbuzbee 6y ago
There's a difference between a bribe to win a contract or similar vs. the case where you feel in danger - e.g. you come across a roadblock in rural Mexico and an armed official wants a "clear up your paperwork" payoff to let you pass. That's the scenario the training covers.
- temp667 6y ago
  Exactly, and it's clearly permitted to pay in that case because being able to travel involves routine govt action. I have no idea where this legal advice is coming from.
  - reaperducer 6y ago
    I have no idea where this legal advice is coming from. From the usual IANAL crowd: "I saw it on the internet, so it must be true." And if you're an actual lawyer, internet rules dictate that anything you know is trumped by a Wikipedia link.
    - brigandish 6y ago
      To be fair, the Wikipedia pages on law that I've read are quite good (IANAL, just interested), probably because they rarely touch on politics. Or, perhaps it's that those editors who distort other areas of the wiki to fit their political biases aren't interested in law. It could be either or both (or neither, but I'm biased towards myself;)
  - zaroth 6y ago
    > routine govt action Like issuing a concealed-carry permit to a non-felon ex-Navy corporate executive. OP describes a ransom, not a bribe. Charge the govt official who demanded the ransom, not the citizen entrapped in the scheme.
    - moftz 6y ago
      Except most of these guys either paid the bribe or had it ready to go until they heard sirens. These guys could have easily reported the solicitation but instead they participated in it. This isn't the case where a cop is threatening to throw you in jail or plant drugs on you unless you pay up right now, this is a state permit process. No one had their life or freedom directly threatened over not having more CCW permits for their security team. The sheriff deputies fucked up. The CCW applicants fucked up. Everyone got caught and everyone is going to suffer the consequences.
crx07 6y ago
I have never heard of a major company that didn't advise its employees to pay bribes abroad. Whether it's legal or illegal is almost aside the point, someone can choose between either breaking some arcane, unenforced US law, or potentially spending months/years in some hellhole of a third-world jail or prison while the Embassy slowly negotiates a release. And in some places, that's assuming someone doesn't just "disappear" or get robbed and shot on the spot. It'd often be better to get fired and federally charged than to risk what your company advocates. In a worst case scenario, at least you know what you're getting, at least you'll have competent legal defense, and at least there will be a high -- virtually unprovable -- standard of evidence required for a federal jury to indict.
- newacct583 6y ago
  > I have never heard of a major company that didn't advise its employees to pay bribes abroad. That would be conspiracy. No, absolutely this does not happen. Now, at the micro level it does happen that individual executives rope their employees in to fraud at their direction. But absoutely no "company" anywhere "advises" its employees to pay bribes as a matter of policy.
  - zorpner 6y ago
    Yes, this happens frequently. They are termed "facilitation payments" rather than bribes, they are budgeted and accounted for as expenses, and the official direction of briefing materials at at least three Fortune 100 companies (that I know of) directs people to pay them.
    - consumer451 6y ago
      I am not sure why you were being downvoted, exactly. While there is a difference between the two terms, it seems like an area that firms could easily fudge, until someone actually investigated the specific case. > What is the Difference Between Bribery and Facilitation Payments? > Facilitation payments are different from bribes in that they’re offered or solicited in return for a service a person or a company is entitled to receive. In contrast, bribes are offered in return for undue and illegal advantage. [0] Do we know if these executives were deserving of the CCP? It would appear they were, from the post’s link: > Sung—second in rank only to Sheriff Laurie Smith in the sheriff’s office—is accused of deliberately holding back four concealed carry weapons (CCW) permits for Apple’s security team until the Cupertino-based corporation agreed to donate 200 iPads worth about $75,000 to the Sheriff’s Office, Rosen said. Sung and Jensen allegedly worked together to solicit the exchange of CCW permits for the tech donation from Apple. The much larger corruption seems to be on the LEO side to me. Which of the two actors swore an oath to uphold the law? If it wasn’t for clickbait, the headline would focus on the LEO. [0] https://www.ganintegrity.com/compliance-glossary/facilitation-payments/ https://www.ganintegrity.com/compliance-glossary/facilitatio...
throwawaygh 6y ago
I have seen both in training, but in different contexts. jbuzbee is referring to international travel training you go through if you apply to travel to/through a "red"/"restricted" country. They are not referring to the generic "don't take a bribe for a contract" training.
acituan 6y ago
> That is illegal according to US law. Not always. If the local laws don't classify it legally as bribe you can pay it and even claim it on your taxes as cost of doing business.
kelnos 6y ago
IANAL, but I think a general rule of thumb is: will this bribe get me out being detained against my will (or worse) for doing nothing wrong? If yes, then it's ok. But: if I don't pay this bribe, the only consequence will be that my company doesn't win this contract -- that's not an ok bribe to pay.
garmaine 6y ago
This is incorrect. It's classified as a "grease payment", not a bribe. It's explicitly allowed under the FCPA.

temp667 6y ago

"That is illegal according to US law." Can I ask if you are an attorney - because this is absolutely 100% false. You are spreading misinformation here. If your employer fires you for paying a facilitation fee to advance a routine govt action or travel then you should absolutely sue them.

leecb 6y ago
> The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 is a United States federal law that prohibits U.S. citizens and entities from bribing foreign government officials to benefit their business interests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act
- closeparen 6y ago
  > Regarding payments to foreign officials, the act draws a distinction between bribery and facilitation or "grease payments", which may be permissible under the FCPA, but may still violate local laws. The primary distinction is that grease payments or facilitation payments are made to an official to expedite his performance of the routine duties he is already bound to perform

jbuzbee 6y ago

There's a difference between a bribe to win a contract or similar vs. the case where you feel in danger - e.g. you come across a roadblock in rural Mexico and an armed official wants a "clear up your paperwork" payoff to let you pass. That's the scenario the training covers.

temp667 6y ago
Exactly, and it's clearly permitted to pay in that case because being able to travel involves routine govt action. I have no idea where this legal advice is coming from.
- reaperducer 6y ago
  I have no idea where this legal advice is coming from. From the usual IANAL crowd: "I saw it on the internet, so it must be true." And if you're an actual lawyer, internet rules dictate that anything you know is trumped by a Wikipedia link.
  - brigandish 6y ago
    To be fair, the Wikipedia pages on law that I've read are quite good (IANAL, just interested), probably because they rarely touch on politics. Or, perhaps it's that those editors who distort other areas of the wiki to fit their political biases aren't interested in law. It could be either or both (or neither, but I'm biased towards myself;)
- zaroth 6y ago
  > routine govt action Like issuing a concealed-carry permit to a non-felon ex-Navy corporate executive. OP describes a ransom, not a bribe. Charge the govt official who demanded the ransom, not the citizen entrapped in the scheme.
  - moftz 6y ago
    Except most of these guys either paid the bribe or had it ready to go until they heard sirens. These guys could have easily reported the solicitation but instead they participated in it. This isn't the case where a cop is threatening to throw you in jail or plant drugs on you unless you pay up right now, this is a state permit process. No one had their life or freedom directly threatened over not having more CCW permits for their security team. The sheriff deputies fucked up. The CCW applicants fucked up. Everyone got caught and everyone is going to suffer the consequences.

crx07 6y ago

I have never heard of a major company that didn't advise its employees to pay bribes abroad. Whether it's legal or illegal is almost aside the point, someone can choose between either breaking some arcane, unenforced US law, or potentially spending months/years in some hellhole of a third-world jail or prison while the Embassy slowly negotiates a release. And in some places, that's assuming someone doesn't just "disappear" or get robbed and shot on the spot. It'd often be better to get fired and federally charged than to risk what your company advocates. In a worst case scenario, at least you know what you're getting, at least you'll have competent legal defense, and at least there will be a high -- virtually unprovable -- standard of evidence required for a federal jury to indict.

newacct583 6y ago
> I have never heard of a major company that didn't advise its employees to pay bribes abroad. That would be conspiracy. No, absolutely this does not happen. Now, at the micro level it does happen that individual executives rope their employees in to fraud at their direction. But absoutely no "company" anywhere "advises" its employees to pay bribes as a matter of policy.
- zorpner 6y ago
  Yes, this happens frequently. They are termed "facilitation payments" rather than bribes, they are budgeted and accounted for as expenses, and the official direction of briefing materials at at least three Fortune 100 companies (that I know of) directs people to pay them.
  - consumer451 6y ago
    I am not sure why you were being downvoted, exactly. While there is a difference between the two terms, it seems like an area that firms could easily fudge, until someone actually investigated the specific case. > What is the Difference Between Bribery and Facilitation Payments? > Facilitation payments are different from bribes in that they’re offered or solicited in return for a service a person or a company is entitled to receive. In contrast, bribes are offered in return for undue and illegal advantage. [0] Do we know if these executives were deserving of the CCP? It would appear they were, from the post’s link: > Sung—second in rank only to Sheriff Laurie Smith in the sheriff’s office—is accused of deliberately holding back four concealed carry weapons (CCW) permits for Apple’s security team until the Cupertino-based corporation agreed to donate 200 iPads worth about $75,000 to the Sheriff’s Office, Rosen said. Sung and Jensen allegedly worked together to solicit the exchange of CCW permits for the tech donation from Apple. The much larger corruption seems to be on the LEO side to me. Which of the two actors swore an oath to uphold the law? If it wasn’t for clickbait, the headline would focus on the LEO. [0] https://www.ganintegrity.com/compliance-glossary/facilitation-payments/ https://www.ganintegrity.com/compliance-glossary/facilitatio...

throwawaygh 6y ago

I have seen both in training, but in different contexts. jbuzbee is referring to international travel training you go through if you apply to travel to/through a "red"/"restricted" country. They are not referring to the generic "don't take a bribe for a contract" training.

acituan 6y ago

> That is illegal according to US law. Not always. If the local laws don't classify it legally as bribe you can pay it and even claim it on your taxes as cost of doing business.

kelnos 6y ago

IANAL, but I think a general rule of thumb is: will this bribe get me out being detained against my will (or worse) for doing nothing wrong? If yes, then it's ok. But: if I don't pay this bribe, the only consequence will be that my company doesn't win this contract -- that's not an ok bribe to pay.

garmaine 6y ago

This is incorrect. It's classified as a "grease payment", not a bribe. It's explicitly allowed under the FCPA.