5 ms·

The company is also believed to have bribed the terrorist group to allow it to use a fast route through ISIS territory that avoided government checkpoints. The

by causi 5y ago

The company is also believed to have bribed the terrorist group to allow it to use a fast route through ISIS territory that avoided government checkpoints. The telco used sham contracts, inflated invoices, and falsified financial statements to funnel millions to ISIS and local power brokers, with millions still unaccounted for. Oh damn. That's going beyond just trying to maintain your infrastructure for the sake of the populace.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Mountain_Skies 5y ago
Companies that are willing to pay terrorist groups will have no qualms about doing business with Russia, which is why all of the talk of sanctions is usually pointless. Nobody keeps to them on things that matter. If there's money to be made, companies will deal with terrorists no problem and as we've seen from past sanctions on nation-states, governments will carve out all kind of exceptions for the well connected and turn a blind eye to even more, only giving a slap on the wrist to those who get caught.
- ct0 5y ago
  nothing has changed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
- acdha 5y ago
  This isn't a given, and your stating of it as a certainty seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Those things only happen to the extent that voters let them and telling everyone that it's inevitable is exactly what keeps corruption running. Tyler Cowen refers to this as the libertarian vice: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/08/the_libertarian.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/08/th... There is an enormous range of tolerance for this and portraying it all in the most cynical light is actively harmful.
  - JAlexoid 5y ago
    I mean... Italy carved out exceptions for luxury goods. People will be easily manipulated and will trade a life of child in the next city for an extra $1 in their pocket. It's morbid, but constant pressure is the only way.
  - ASalazarMX 5y ago
    > Those things only happen to the extent that voters let them To be fair, the Achilles heel of democracy is that most voters are easily manipulated. Demagogy, fake grass roots movements, infotainment, religion, gerrymandering, etc. Unless one of the small parties gets better at manipulation, USA will vote for two candidates of the same two parties forever.
    - acdha 5y ago
      I'm not saying it's easy but we have had plenty of elections which came down to minor variations in turnout. If your message is “they're all the same, why bother?” you are not going to get people to turnout as much as “we can do this, here's how!” and since you know that there are billions of dollars pushing falsehoods it's pretty much certain that things will go a way you don't want in the absence of counterpressure.
  - phkahler 5y ago
    >> Those things only happen to the extent that voters let them... Voters have to be aware of things in order to influence them. This is why a free press and government (and corporate) transparency are critical. All 3 of those seem to be in decline lately.
    - acdha 5y ago
      No argument. My point is simply that this is not the natural order of things and we can consciously correct for it.
  - autoexec 5y ago
    > Those things only happen to the extent that voters let them I don't know how it is in other places, but in the US the only people who can effectively make change in government are the extremity wealthy, corporations, and industry lobby groups. The average citizen and mass-based interest groups have effectively zero impact on policy. (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B#sec0 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...) It's one thing to say "Let's not be cynical", but we can't ignore evidence either. As disheartening as it may be, voters are not able to effectively influence policy against the interests of a very small number of very rich people. As much as I'd like to think it's still possible to change things within the system we have, that same system has been captured and manipulated to make that increasingly difficult over centuries.
- loudtieblahblah 5y ago
  no company, especially of the multi-national and/or publicly traded variety, has any qualms about doing business with any body. if you think otherwise, youre kidding yourself. companies are incentivized to have qualms through a mix of legal measures and risk assessment of backlash.. then once the "correct" choice is made, they make big PR statements about their allegiance to utilize it to empower their brand. every company who has supported green endeavors or BLM would support a party of Nazis if it was in their benefit. The line from Amazon to IBM isn't that far. they are not your friends. theyre not allies in your cause. they are not conservative or liberal. they are not moral or immoral. they are amoral and greedy. period. the end
  - JAlexoid 5y ago
    You cannot be amoral, when morality isn't part of the equation. Companies are not "greedy" as they are defined - they're a wealth making organization. Majority of American enterprises are owned by various funds, including pension funds. Which makes the beneficiaries the source for these demands to be "greedy".
- elliekelly 5y ago
  We have laws (like FCPA) to address this but it’s quite difficult to “police” and there aren’t a lot of incentives for someone to blow the whistle.
  - from 5y ago
    There is now. You can get 10-30% of the settlement the company makes with the government. If anyone reading this has any information about their company making bribes to foreign governments and does not particularly care about their company then they should contact a lawyer who specializes in corporate whistleblowing and begin the process of collecting their settlement bucks.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      "does not particularly care about their company then they should contact a lawyer" On the contrary, they should take action if they dont want their company, and the rest of society, to turn into a dirty, corrupt cesspit.
      - throwaway2037 5y ago
        I agree. This is the reason that most people come forward as "whistleblowers". They see something grossly unfair or illegal and feel compelled to report it. In the last 20 years, the US has introduced a mixture of Federal laws & regulations that seek to compensate whistleblowers with a portion of the fines paid. This helps whistleblowers to overcome some fear about reporting. A deeper question to ask: Why don't all societies trend negative and "turn into a dirty, corrupt cesspit"? Honestly, I can only guess about the effects of human cooperation and altruism. I am thankful to have lived in relatively uncorrupt societies in my life. When people tell me stories about living in much more corrupt places (some examples from last 25 years: Russia, Pakistan, Indonesia), I am always appalled. It seems so unfair to live in a corrupt society. It is a drain on good life! I always think to myself: How does anyone get things done!?
ganzuul 5y ago
Many voices die in silence. It is hard to gauge motivations when it comes to the right to have a voice, because it is an appropriate arena for fanaticism.
nivenkos 5y ago
Were the CEO, COO, etc. punished at all?
- from 5y ago
  This is a particularly egregious case but reports about FCPA cases like these (and the ensuing calls to imprison executives) neglect the fact that most major multinationals do not want to pay anyone. Governments in about half the world require you to pay to get anything done, especially in highly regulated sectors like telecommunications. The government employees in charge of licenses, permits etc in these countries will literally refuse to do their jobs unless you pay them. Walmart just recently had a [$300 million](https://apnews.com/article/latin-america-us-news-ap-top-news-brazil-ar-state-wire-509cfaa2786642ac9b7ead643fd709b4 https://apnews.com/article/latin-america-us-news-ap-top-news...) fine for paying a local "expeditor" to get construction permits in Brazil. They didn't pay for a monopoly on supermarkets, they didn't pay prosectors to investigate their competitors, they paid so they could build a Walmart in Brazil. Is that evil?
  - Jiro 5y ago
    The reason we have to have laws about such things is that paying the bribe is always beneficial to the individual company. Refusing to pay bribes only helps if every company refuses to pay the bribe. If you can't do business without bribing someone, that's like not being able to do business without using slaves; what you should do is stop doing business, not start using slaves.
    - from 5y ago
      >The reason we have to have laws about such things is that paying the bribe is always beneficial to the individual company. Refusing to pay bribes only helps if every company refuses to pay the bribe. That's great in theory and that was the intent of the people who wrote foreign bribery laws but it never works out this way. What happens in practice is that American companies leave the country and companies from places like Russia and China who are willing to pay get the business. Or it goes to local companies who also still pay. >If you can't do business without bribing someone, that's like not being able to do business without using slaves; what you should do is stop doing business, not start using slaves. Except paying the bribes doesn't cost anyone except the company paying them. You've got it reversed here: the company paying the bribes is often the victim. Do you think Telia really wanted to pay $320 million to the Uzbek president's daughter? They probably would rather have had Uzbekistan have a telecom licensing system that actually worked like the FCC.
robotnikman 5y ago
For a Swedish company I would have expected better of them.
- throwaway2037 5y ago
  How did you feel about the CEO's reaction? I thought it was authentic, not the usual bullshit with a "sorry not sorry" apology. Also, he did not try to "sweep it under the rug". Example quote from Borje Ekholm: "I know part of this involves me, and part of it involves before. I’m not going to blame anybody for anything." Sources: [1] https://www.ft.com/content/8779157b-5568-48e7-a117-96b74c6db957 https://www.ft.com/content/8779157b-5568-48e7-a117-96b74c6db... [2] https://www.ft.com/content/4fd12e9b-6037-4f4d-8b3a-63cce4a57350 https://www.ft.com/content/4fd12e9b-6037-4f4d-8b3a-63cce4a57...
pjmlp 5y ago
Another good example why company values trainings are worthless.

by causi 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Mountain_Skies 5y ago

Companies that are willing to pay terrorist groups will have no qualms about doing business with Russia, which is why all of the talk of sanctions is usually pointless. Nobody keeps to them on things that matter. If there's money to be made, companies will deal with terrorists no problem and as we've seen from past sanctions on nation-states, governments will carve out all kind of exceptions for the well connected and turn a blind eye to even more, only giving a slap on the wrist to those who get caught.

ct0 5y ago
nothing has changed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
acdha 5y ago
This isn't a given, and your stating of it as a certainty seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Those things only happen to the extent that voters let them and telling everyone that it's inevitable is exactly what keeps corruption running. Tyler Cowen refers to this as the libertarian vice: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/08/the_libertarian.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/08/th... There is an enormous range of tolerance for this and portraying it all in the most cynical light is actively harmful.
- JAlexoid 5y ago
  I mean... Italy carved out exceptions for luxury goods. People will be easily manipulated and will trade a life of child in the next city for an extra $1 in their pocket. It's morbid, but constant pressure is the only way.
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  > Those things only happen to the extent that voters let them To be fair, the Achilles heel of democracy is that most voters are easily manipulated. Demagogy, fake grass roots movements, infotainment, religion, gerrymandering, etc. Unless one of the small parties gets better at manipulation, USA will vote for two candidates of the same two parties forever.
  - acdha 5y ago
    I'm not saying it's easy but we have had plenty of elections which came down to minor variations in turnout. If your message is “they're all the same, why bother?” you are not going to get people to turnout as much as “we can do this, here's how!” and since you know that there are billions of dollars pushing falsehoods it's pretty much certain that things will go a way you don't want in the absence of counterpressure.
- phkahler 5y ago
  >> Those things only happen to the extent that voters let them... Voters have to be aware of things in order to influence them. This is why a free press and government (and corporate) transparency are critical. All 3 of those seem to be in decline lately.
  - acdha 5y ago
    No argument. My point is simply that this is not the natural order of things and we can consciously correct for it.
- autoexec 5y ago
  > Those things only happen to the extent that voters let them I don't know how it is in other places, but in the US the only people who can effectively make change in government are the extremity wealthy, corporations, and industry lobby groups. The average citizen and mass-based interest groups have effectively zero impact on policy. (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B#sec0 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...) It's one thing to say "Let's not be cynical", but we can't ignore evidence either. As disheartening as it may be, voters are not able to effectively influence policy against the interests of a very small number of very rich people. As much as I'd like to think it's still possible to change things within the system we have, that same system has been captured and manipulated to make that increasingly difficult over centuries.
loudtieblahblah 5y ago
no company, especially of the multi-national and/or publicly traded variety, has any qualms about doing business with any body. if you think otherwise, youre kidding yourself. companies are incentivized to have qualms through a mix of legal measures and risk assessment of backlash.. then once the "correct" choice is made, they make big PR statements about their allegiance to utilize it to empower their brand. every company who has supported green endeavors or BLM would support a party of Nazis if it was in their benefit. The line from Amazon to IBM isn't that far. they are not your friends. theyre not allies in your cause. they are not conservative or liberal. they are not moral or immoral. they are amoral and greedy. period. the end
- JAlexoid 5y ago
  You cannot be amoral, when morality isn't part of the equation. Companies are not "greedy" as they are defined - they're a wealth making organization. Majority of American enterprises are owned by various funds, including pension funds. Which makes the beneficiaries the source for these demands to be "greedy".
elliekelly 5y ago
We have laws (like FCPA) to address this but it’s quite difficult to “police” and there aren’t a lot of incentives for someone to blow the whistle.
- from 5y ago
  There is now. You can get 10-30% of the settlement the company makes with the government. If anyone reading this has any information about their company making bribes to foreign governments and does not particularly care about their company then they should contact a lawyer who specializes in corporate whistleblowing and begin the process of collecting their settlement bucks.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    "does not particularly care about their company then they should contact a lawyer" On the contrary, they should take action if they dont want their company, and the rest of society, to turn into a dirty, corrupt cesspit.
    - throwaway2037 5y ago
      I agree. This is the reason that most people come forward as "whistleblowers". They see something grossly unfair or illegal and feel compelled to report it. In the last 20 years, the US has introduced a mixture of Federal laws & regulations that seek to compensate whistleblowers with a portion of the fines paid. This helps whistleblowers to overcome some fear about reporting. A deeper question to ask: Why don't all societies trend negative and "turn into a dirty, corrupt cesspit"? Honestly, I can only guess about the effects of human cooperation and altruism. I am thankful to have lived in relatively uncorrupt societies in my life. When people tell me stories about living in much more corrupt places (some examples from last 25 years: Russia, Pakistan, Indonesia), I am always appalled. It seems so unfair to live in a corrupt society. It is a drain on good life! I always think to myself: How does anyone get things done!?

ganzuul 5y ago

Many voices die in silence. It is hard to gauge motivations when it comes to the right to have a voice, because it is an appropriate arena for fanaticism.

nivenkos 5y ago

Were the CEO, COO, etc. punished at all?

from 5y ago
This is a particularly egregious case but reports about FCPA cases like these (and the ensuing calls to imprison executives) neglect the fact that most major multinationals do not want to pay anyone. Governments in about half the world require you to pay to get anything done, especially in highly regulated sectors like telecommunications. The government employees in charge of licenses, permits etc in these countries will literally refuse to do their jobs unless you pay them. Walmart just recently had a [$300 million](https://apnews.com/article/latin-america-us-news-ap-top-news-brazil-ar-state-wire-509cfaa2786642ac9b7ead643fd709b4 https://apnews.com/article/latin-america-us-news-ap-top-news...) fine for paying a local "expeditor" to get construction permits in Brazil. They didn't pay for a monopoly on supermarkets, they didn't pay prosectors to investigate their competitors, they paid so they could build a Walmart in Brazil. Is that evil?
- Jiro 5y ago
  The reason we have to have laws about such things is that paying the bribe is always beneficial to the individual company. Refusing to pay bribes only helps if every company refuses to pay the bribe. If you can't do business without bribing someone, that's like not being able to do business without using slaves; what you should do is stop doing business, not start using slaves.
  - from 5y ago
    >The reason we have to have laws about such things is that paying the bribe is always beneficial to the individual company. Refusing to pay bribes only helps if every company refuses to pay the bribe. That's great in theory and that was the intent of the people who wrote foreign bribery laws but it never works out this way. What happens in practice is that American companies leave the country and companies from places like Russia and China who are willing to pay get the business. Or it goes to local companies who also still pay. >If you can't do business without bribing someone, that's like not being able to do business without using slaves; what you should do is stop doing business, not start using slaves. Except paying the bribes doesn't cost anyone except the company paying them. You've got it reversed here: the company paying the bribes is often the victim. Do you think Telia really wanted to pay $320 million to the Uzbek president's daughter? They probably would rather have had Uzbekistan have a telecom licensing system that actually worked like the FCC.

robotnikman 5y ago

For a Swedish company I would have expected better of them.

throwaway2037 5y ago
How did you feel about the CEO's reaction? I thought it was authentic, not the usual bullshit with a "sorry not sorry" apology. Also, he did not try to "sweep it under the rug". Example quote from Borje Ekholm: "I know part of this involves me, and part of it involves before. I’m not going to blame anybody for anything." Sources: [1] https://www.ft.com/content/8779157b-5568-48e7-a117-96b74c6db957 https://www.ft.com/content/8779157b-5568-48e7-a117-96b74c6db... [2] https://www.ft.com/content/4fd12e9b-6037-4f4d-8b3a-63cce4a57350 https://www.ft.com/content/4fd12e9b-6037-4f4d-8b3a-63cce4a57...

pjmlp 5y ago

Another good example why company values trainings are worthless.