3 ms·

Chesterton's Fence principle - Usually a good idea to read the motivation / History behind the law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Ac

by sfifs 4y ago

Chesterton's Fence principle - Usually a good idea to read the motivation / History behind the law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Ac... I'd say the effect sought to be achieved is pretty much opposite of imperialism. In imperialiam (as demonstrated by various histories), colonizer citizens get away with pretty much anything in the colonized countries. FCPA levels the playing field by making colonizers liable in the home country.

notch656a 4y ago
India, the UAE, nor Turkey are colonies of the United States. Also the idea you can be on a level playing fields with citizens in certain countries without bribery is just laughable. The common citizen bribes in a number of third world countries just to get routine service, and if you don't bribe you're left pragmatically a sub-citizen status. >Chesterton's Fence principle Exactly. One should study why bribery is often necessary to even be a 'level' participant on the playing field before assuming anyone bribing is a 'colonizer.'
- ajhurliman 4y ago
  IIRC the FCPA _does_ allow some bribes if they're considered commonplace in that particular country. I have no idea how they determine which ones are okay.
  - from 4y ago
    Technically, payments which do not influence an outcome but merely speed up a decision are allowed. So bribing a minister to throw out all competing bids on a contract would be illegal but paying some clerk who’s dragging her feet on incorporation paperwork would be legal. In practice this line is a lot more blurry and they will charge companies even if they bribe for routine services. Walmart for instance paid a pretty big fine for paying to get building permits faster in Brazil. Companies will always settle because they don’t want to report to shareholders that a massive verdict and fine could be coming up. There’s also a duress exception, like if they start arbitrarily arresting your employees you are allowed to pay to get them out. This is basically what happened to Halotel and Viettel in Tanzania.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Any law with such arbitrary and capricious interpretation should be unconstitutional. This is precisely the kind of reason why extra-territorial jurisdiction is generally a bad idea.

by sfifs 4y ago

notch656a 4y ago

India, the UAE, nor Turkey are colonies of the United States. Also the idea you can be on a level playing fields with citizens in certain countries without bribery is just laughable. The common citizen bribes in a number of third world countries just to get routine service, and if you don't bribe you're left pragmatically a sub-citizen status. >Chesterton's Fence principle Exactly. One should study why bribery is often necessary to even be a 'level' participant on the playing field before assuming anyone bribing is a 'colonizer.'

ajhurliman 4y ago
IIRC the FCPA _does_ allow some bribes if they're considered commonplace in that particular country. I have no idea how they determine which ones are okay.
- from 4y ago
  Technically, payments which do not influence an outcome but merely speed up a decision are allowed. So bribing a minister to throw out all competing bids on a contract would be illegal but paying some clerk who’s dragging her feet on incorporation paperwork would be legal. In practice this line is a lot more blurry and they will charge companies even if they bribe for routine services. Walmart for instance paid a pretty big fine for paying to get building permits faster in Brazil. Companies will always settle because they don’t want to report to shareholders that a massive verdict and fine could be coming up. There’s also a duress exception, like if they start arbitrarily arresting your employees you are allowed to pay to get them out. This is basically what happened to Halotel and Viettel in Tanzania.
- notch656a 4y ago
  Any law with such arbitrary and capricious interpretation should be unconstitutional. This is precisely the kind of reason why extra-territorial jurisdiction is generally a bad idea.