3 ms·

"Those who act virtuously in every way, necessarily come to grief by those less virtuous." - Machiavelli The problem with the FCPA is that it inherently provid

"Those who act virtuously in every way, necessarily come to grief by those less virtuous." - Machiavelli The problem with the FCPA is that it inherently provides an unfair advantage to countries where foreign brides are not criminal or never prosecuted. Moreover, it's created a cottage industry of foreign 'consultants' and foreign attorneys, providing plausible deniability for outsourced bribery. This would be fine if Treasury, Commerce & DOJ put the screws to foreign countries & companies who engage in this misconduct, but the hard reality is they lack the resources to do so, and are far more concerned with politically charged priorities accruing more public & Congressional attention. Like environmental/climate policy and many other issues... the US is quite happy to disadvantage US businesses in global competition without any substantive effort to level the playing field through extra-territorial enforcement or policy reform. For example, we should permit statutory safe harbor for foreign bribery if US companies become confidential informants to DOJ, Treasury or Commerce, enabled via a clear and accessible platform for reporting. Instead, we live in a magical, feel-good, fantasy land in the US, with very little awareness of how the rest of the world really does business.

stainablesteel 4y ago
I agree with this notion, domestic us restrictions on foreign business policies have paved the way for businesses and institutions of other countries to act on even worse faith. There's parallels with this happening in the beef industry, where organizations are trying to lower the production of beef for environmental reasons. The result is they're attacking the most efficient beef farmers in the world - because they produce the most beef. If successful, the demand will only be picked up by less efficient farmers elsewhere in the world, causing a worse environmental impact.
akamaka 4y ago
This is a very misguided comment. Bribery is a net economic loss — the company has to pay the bribe, and there is a long-term loss as the money gets spent on yachts instead of projects that spur further economic growth. Companies and their shareholders never wanted to pay out these bribes, and want these laws, because there is little competitive advantage to be gained by being better at bribing. Over time the laws have been extending to most developed countries, including the whole OECD. Sure, there are still exceptions, and if you’re a corrupt official, you can still select a Chinese engineering firm and pocket bribes. But it’s those excluded countries that are playing the losing game in the long term, ruining their international reputation and funding unproductive infrastructure projects with debt their own banks will be saddled with.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- vkou 4y ago
  > Companies and their shareholders never wanted to pay out these bribes, Incorrect. A company is incentivized to find the cheapest and easiest way to get what they want, and if that way consists of slipping a year's wages to a corrupt official or executive, it has a reason to do it. The net economic loss to other people does not factor into this calculus. The whole point of quid-pro-quo is that the person giving the bribe expects to receive a benefit that is worth more to them than the cost of the bribe.
  - akamaka 4y ago
    Wrong. Many of the owners of the company — the shareholders — are invested in a diverse group of companies. If those companies in their portfolio are competing to out-bribe each other, there is no gain to the investor. The gains go mostly to a few corrupt executives who get a bigger bonus, and the corrupt foreign officials. Perhaps a few unscrupulous privately held companies would prefer scrap the laws as well, but the reason the laws exist are because they are broadly seen as good for business by most players.
    - fluoridation 4y ago
      That's no different from the case where two companies with common shareholders compete with each other. A company is not beholden to increase the net worth of any particular shareholder. If a shareholder owns shares in companies with conflicting interests, that's that shareholder's problem.
      - akamaka 4y ago
        > that's that shareholder's problem Yes, and thus the shareholders have pushed forward anti-bribery initiatives: https://www.weforum.org/communities/partnering-against-corruption-initiative https://www.weforum.org/communities/partnering-against-corru...
gadders 4y ago
>>This would be fine if Treasury, Commerce & DOJ put the screws to foreign countries & companies who engage in this misconduct, They do, but they level the playing field in other ways: "That's right, my continental friends, we have spied on you because you bribe. Your companies' products are often more costly, less technically advanced or both, than your American competitors'. As a result you bribe a lot. So complicit are your governments that in several European countries bribes still are tax-deductible. When we have caught you at it, you might be interested, we haven't said a word to the U.S. companies in the competition. Instead we go to the government you're bribing and tell its officials that we don't take kindly to such corruption. They often respond by giving the most meritorious bid (sometimes American, sometimes not) all or part of the contract. This upsets you, and sometimes creates recriminations between your bribers and the other country's bribees, and this occasionally becomes a public scandal. We love it." Why We Spy on Our Allies By R. James Woolsey, a Washington lawyer and a former director of central intelligence. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB95326824311657269 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB95326824311657269
- howmayiannoyyou 4y ago
  Big companies might get the benefit of CIA spying on transnational bribery, but small business - where most US jobs are created - is left swinging in the wind.
themitigating 4y ago
How could the DOJ "put the screw" to foreign companies? What power or leverage do they have over them?
- from 4y ago
  https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/alstom-pleads-guilty-and-agrees-pay-772-million-criminal-penalty-resolve-foreign-bribery https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/alstom-pleads-guilty-and-agre... https://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/pr/novartis-ag-and-subsidiaries-pay-345-million-resolve-foreign-corrupt-practices-act-cases https://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/pr/novartis-ag-and-subsidiar... https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/ericsson-agrees-pay-over-1-billion-resolve-fcpa-case https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/ericsson-agrees-pay-over-1-bi... It is the view of the current set of people in law enforcement that the United States government has jurisdiction over any person who participates in transactions using dollars.
coredog64 4y ago
Making paying a bribe illegal changes the equilibrium. If soliciting a bribe as a government official has the same penalty for paying it, there’s incentives to do it and hide it. However, if soliciting is illegal but paying is not, then it’s more likely that they receiver will get dinged. The other side of this is offering a bribe to an honest government official: Let them take it (and turn it over to law enforcement) and then turn in the payer. In both those cases, it’s now riskier to solicit/offer bribes.

stainablesteel 4y ago

I agree with this notion, domestic us restrictions on foreign business policies have paved the way for businesses and institutions of other countries to act on even worse faith. There's parallels with this happening in the beef industry, where organizations are trying to lower the production of beef for environmental reasons. The result is they're attacking the most efficient beef farmers in the world - because they produce the most beef. If successful, the demand will only be picked up by less efficient farmers elsewhere in the world, causing a worse environmental impact.

akamaka 4y ago

This is a very misguided comment. Bribery is a net economic loss — the company has to pay the bribe, and there is a long-term loss as the money gets spent on yachts instead of projects that spur further economic growth. Companies and their shareholders never wanted to pay out these bribes, and want these laws, because there is little competitive advantage to be gained by being better at bribing. Over time the laws have been extending to most developed countries, including the whole OECD. Sure, there are still exceptions, and if you’re a corrupt official, you can still select a Chinese engineering firm and pocket bribes. But it’s those excluded countries that are playing the losing game in the long term, ruining their international reputation and funding unproductive infrastructure projects with debt their own banks will be saddled with.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
vkou 4y ago
> Companies and their shareholders never wanted to pay out these bribes, Incorrect. A company is incentivized to find the cheapest and easiest way to get what they want, and if that way consists of slipping a year's wages to a corrupt official or executive, it has a reason to do it. The net economic loss to other people does not factor into this calculus. The whole point of quid-pro-quo is that the person giving the bribe expects to receive a benefit that is worth more to them than the cost of the bribe.
- akamaka 4y ago
  Wrong. Many of the owners of the company — the shareholders — are invested in a diverse group of companies. If those companies in their portfolio are competing to out-bribe each other, there is no gain to the investor. The gains go mostly to a few corrupt executives who get a bigger bonus, and the corrupt foreign officials. Perhaps a few unscrupulous privately held companies would prefer scrap the laws as well, but the reason the laws exist are because they are broadly seen as good for business by most players.
  - fluoridation 4y ago
    That's no different from the case where two companies with common shareholders compete with each other. A company is not beholden to increase the net worth of any particular shareholder. If a shareholder owns shares in companies with conflicting interests, that's that shareholder's problem.
    - akamaka 4y ago
      > that's that shareholder's problem Yes, and thus the shareholders have pushed forward anti-bribery initiatives: https://www.weforum.org/communities/partnering-against-corruption-initiative https://www.weforum.org/communities/partnering-against-corru...

gadders 4y ago

>>This would be fine if Treasury, Commerce & DOJ put the screws to foreign countries & companies who engage in this misconduct, They do, but they level the playing field in other ways: "That's right, my continental friends, we have spied on you because you bribe. Your companies' products are often more costly, less technically advanced or both, than your American competitors'. As a result you bribe a lot. So complicit are your governments that in several European countries bribes still are tax-deductible. When we have caught you at it, you might be interested, we haven't said a word to the U.S. companies in the competition. Instead we go to the government you're bribing and tell its officials that we don't take kindly to such corruption. They often respond by giving the most meritorious bid (sometimes American, sometimes not) all or part of the contract. This upsets you, and sometimes creates recriminations between your bribers and the other country's bribees, and this occasionally becomes a public scandal. We love it." Why We Spy on Our Allies By R. James Woolsey, a Washington lawyer and a former director of central intelligence. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB95326824311657269 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB95326824311657269

howmayiannoyyou 4y ago
Big companies might get the benefit of CIA spying on transnational bribery, but small business - where most US jobs are created - is left swinging in the wind.

themitigating 4y ago

How could the DOJ "put the screw" to foreign companies? What power or leverage do they have over them?

from 4y ago
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/alstom-pleads-guilty-and-agrees-pay-772-million-criminal-penalty-resolve-foreign-bribery https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/alstom-pleads-guilty-and-agre... https://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/pr/novartis-ag-and-subsidiaries-pay-345-million-resolve-foreign-corrupt-practices-act-cases https://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/pr/novartis-ag-and-subsidiar... https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/ericsson-agrees-pay-over-1-billion-resolve-fcpa-case https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/ericsson-agrees-pay-over-1-bi... It is the view of the current set of people in law enforcement that the United States government has jurisdiction over any person who participates in transactions using dollars.

coredog64 4y ago

Making paying a bribe illegal changes the equilibrium. If soliciting a bribe as a government official has the same penalty for paying it, there’s incentives to do it and hide it. However, if soliciting is illegal but paying is not, then it’s more likely that they receiver will get dinged. The other side of this is offering a bribe to an honest government official: Let them take it (and turn it over to law enforcement) and then turn in the payer. In both those cases, it’s now riskier to solicit/offer bribes.