5 ms·

If we’re talking about crimes like “murder”, yes, it’s pretty clear. If we’re talking about crimes like “bribing a public official”, it’s less so. There are co

by avalys 2y ago

If we’re talking about crimes like “murder”, yes, it’s pretty clear. If we’re talking about crimes like “bribing a public official”, it’s less so. There are countries where that is simultaneously 1) technically illegal by that country’s own laws, 2) absolutely an expected and required part of doing business. So what do you do in that case?

ToucanLoucan 2y ago
One could make the argument that if the corporation is required by law in all the non-legal countries to abide by those laws and not bribe officials that the practice will necessarily have to die out among the few countries you would be arguing for, simply because the risk is too great to the corporation. Maybe it would be maintained among local businesses, but it would be an understood fact that a politician could not expect a broad multi-national to participate in it, irrespective of their desire or willingness, if they stood to face prosecution from... however many countries they operate in, all of whom would demand a penalty be served. Even if they're slap-on-the-wrist penalties, that's going to add up real fast.
caf 2y ago
Anyone who has ever worked for a medium-large corporation will have done the inevitable employee training that, among many other things, tells you that "no, you cannot pay bribes or facilitation payments in another country even if it's normal and expected there, and yes you and us can still be prosecuted at home for that".
- phs318u 2y ago
  Which can be code for: “We have specialists[0] for sensitive in-country negotiations.” [0]. Arms-length, third-party, paper-trail-negative contractors.
  - lstodd 2y ago
    so very true
  - rustcleaner 2y ago
    >Arms-length, third-party, paper-trail-negative contractors Sounds lucrative.
leetcrew 2y ago
idk, I see it the other way around actually. if you kill someone in another country, that's still bad, but it's not clear why the US government should be the entity that holds you accountable for it. seems more appropriate to turn you over to that country's government upon request. whereas if you bribe public officials in other countries as normal business practice, that might give you an advantage over other companies that also operate in the US. if they have to also engage in bribery to compete with you, that seems like a much more direct harm to another US entity.
- ComputerGuru 2y ago
  Why stop there and not take it to the next step? Surely company A killing whistleblowers or rabble rousers overseas lets it outperform company B that isn’t doin that state-side? Doesn’t that encourage company B to do the same on red, white, and blue soil?
  - leetcrew 2y ago
    are A and B both operating in the US in your example? if yes, then USG has a legitimate interest in removing that perverse incentive. if not, then the US criminal justice system seems like the wrong place to solve the problem. my point is that the jurisdiction of the US criminal justice system should be limited to the US. if people do things in another country that demonstrably harm US residents, that's fair game. otherwise, it seems like an overreach for the US to enforce laws that might not even exist in other countries. just my opinion, you don't have to agree.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >it's not clear why the US government should be the entity that holds you accountable for it. seems more appropriate to turn you over to that country's government upon request. This would make it very easy for Americans to be mercenaries and assassins for foreign governments.
  - jazzyjackson 2y ago
    aren't they? :p
TheCoelacanth 2y ago
IANAL, but I believe that under US law you are allowed to pay bribes to get someone to do their job in places where that is customary. You just aren't allowed to pay bribes to get someone to do something that they aren't supposed to do.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > under US law you are allowed to pay bribes to get someone to do their job in places where that is customary Not quite. You may be thinking of the “grease payment” exception [1] to the FCPA [2]. Customariness isn’t as important as whether the payment is to speed up a decided outcome or effect the outcome. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facilitating_payment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facilitating_payment [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Ac...
codedokode 2y ago
> absolutely an expected and required part of doing business You just don't do business in such countries? Why do you want to work with corrupt regimes so much?
- ZoomZoomZoom 2y ago
  There will be nowhere to do business in, perhaps. /s

by avalys 2y ago

ToucanLoucan 2y ago

One could make the argument that if the corporation is required by law in all the non-legal countries to abide by those laws and not bribe officials that the practice will necessarily have to die out among the few countries you would be arguing for, simply because the risk is too great to the corporation. Maybe it would be maintained among local businesses, but it would be an understood fact that a politician could not expect a broad multi-national to participate in it, irrespective of their desire or willingness, if they stood to face prosecution from... however many countries they operate in, all of whom would demand a penalty be served. Even if they're slap-on-the-wrist penalties, that's going to add up real fast.

caf 2y ago

Anyone who has ever worked for a medium-large corporation will have done the inevitable employee training that, among many other things, tells you that "no, you cannot pay bribes or facilitation payments in another country even if it's normal and expected there, and yes you and us can still be prosecuted at home for that".

phs318u 2y ago
Which can be code for: “We have specialists[0] for sensitive in-country negotiations.” [0]. Arms-length, third-party, paper-trail-negative contractors.
- lstodd 2y ago
  so very true
- rustcleaner 2y ago
  >Arms-length, third-party, paper-trail-negative contractors Sounds lucrative.

leetcrew 2y ago

idk, I see it the other way around actually. if you kill someone in another country, that's still bad, but it's not clear why the US government should be the entity that holds you accountable for it. seems more appropriate to turn you over to that country's government upon request. whereas if you bribe public officials in other countries as normal business practice, that might give you an advantage over other companies that also operate in the US. if they have to also engage in bribery to compete with you, that seems like a much more direct harm to another US entity.

ComputerGuru 2y ago
Why stop there and not take it to the next step? Surely company A killing whistleblowers or rabble rousers overseas lets it outperform company B that isn’t doin that state-side? Doesn’t that encourage company B to do the same on red, white, and blue soil?
- leetcrew 2y ago
  are A and B both operating in the US in your example? if yes, then USG has a legitimate interest in removing that perverse incentive. if not, then the US criminal justice system seems like the wrong place to solve the problem. my point is that the jurisdiction of the US criminal justice system should be limited to the US. if people do things in another country that demonstrably harm US residents, that's fair game. otherwise, it seems like an overreach for the US to enforce laws that might not even exist in other countries. just my opinion, you don't have to agree.
shiroiushi 2y ago
>it's not clear why the US government should be the entity that holds you accountable for it. seems more appropriate to turn you over to that country's government upon request. This would make it very easy for Americans to be mercenaries and assassins for foreign governments.
- jazzyjackson 2y ago
  aren't they? :p

TheCoelacanth 2y ago

IANAL, but I believe that under US law you are allowed to pay bribes to get someone to do their job in places where that is customary. You just aren't allowed to pay bribes to get someone to do something that they aren't supposed to do.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> under US law you are allowed to pay bribes to get someone to do their job in places where that is customary Not quite. You may be thinking of the “grease payment” exception [1] to the FCPA [2]. Customariness isn’t as important as whether the payment is to speed up a decided outcome or effect the outcome. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facilitating_payment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facilitating_payment [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Ac...

codedokode 2y ago

> absolutely an expected and required part of doing business You just don't do business in such countries? Why do you want to work with corrupt regimes so much?

ZoomZoomZoom 2y ago
There will be nowhere to do business in, perhaps. /s