5 ms·

Why is the US DOJ wasting time and money enforcing other countries laws for them? They broke the law in South Africa. Let South Africa handle it.

OnlineGladiator 2y ago
Because they also broke the law in the US.
vkou 2y ago
Because US companies bribing foreign officials is anti-competitive against US companies which don't.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  Although you've got to balance that against the fact that US companies not bribing foreign officials will result in them losing business to foreign companies that are perfectly happy to bribe. It's a good question to ask why Chinese companies are allowed to get business in Africa with bribery, and the US then doesn't allow its companies to compete on a level playing field with China. Why should the US take a stance at all? Why not let South Africa deal with it? It's not harming the US, is it?
  - vkou 2y ago
    Foreign companies bribing foreign officials who operate in the US can also be sanctioned. And if they don't operate in the US, it's not the US's business to police something a company that has no presence in it does. It's very simple and consistent. Americans and American companies are subject to American laws. People and companies who are in America are also subject to American laws. If you are neither American nor in America, you are not. Nearly every country in the world follows a very similar set of rules regarding jurisdiction.
    - tzs 2y ago
      That doesn't really address the question they asked, which is more about whether or not it should be illegal rather than whether or not it is consistent. Your earlier comment justified it being illegal on the grounds that US companies bribing foreign governments is anti-competitive against other US companies that do not do so. That's an economic justification, not a moral justification. But if we are considering it economically rather than morally then we do have to consider what happens in the case of a foreign country where bribery is common and there are companies other than US companies that are competing there. In that case not allowing US companies to bribe does indeed level competition among US companies--they all lose equally to non-US companies. Is that actually a better economic outcome than allowing US companies to bribe (and thus compete with foreign companies) in countries where bribery is normal? That's a complicated question. It also might be a national security question if we continue heading into a new cold war kind of world. Is it better to have US companies operating in countries the US would like to influence even if those companies have to bribe to do so, or for US companies to stay out and cede influence to companies from countries on the others sides of that cold war?
    - crazygringo 2y ago
      > Nearly every country in the world follows a very similar set of rules regarding jurisdiction. Actually, no. As a general principle, countries do not pass/enforce laws regarding potential criminal activity that their citizens commit against citizens of other countries while in those other countries. To take an extreme example, if you murder a citizen of a foreign country while in that foreign country, your home country is generally not going to charge you with murder. If you come back home, they may extradite you to that foreign country at that country's request, since you broke the law there. But because you were in the foreign country and the victim was also foreign, it's not within domestic jurisdiction. Laws against bribes paid abroad break this rule. And in 2022 it was found that only two countries in the world actively enforce bribery outside their borders -- the US and Switzerland [1]. So no, your assertion that this is how nearly every country in the world operates, is completely false. It's actually a gigantic exception. (Things operate differently for military forces, war crimes, etc. But we're talking about regular civilian/corporate law here.) [1] https://us.transparency.org/news/exporting-corruption-2022-statement/ https://us.transparency.org/news/exporting-corruption-2022-s...
mountainb 2y ago
https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-fraud/foreign-corrupt-practices-act https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-fraud/foreign-corr...
ClumsyPilot 2y ago
In that case will USA honour guilty verdict of a foreign court and extradite bosses of McKenzey or you propose we just shelter criminals?
- fallingknife 2y ago
  Yeah, sounds good to me
bdangubic 2y ago
this comment would only makes sense if all US companies were strictly forbidden from doing any business of any kind outside the country's borders...
vundercind 2y ago
Bribing foreign officials is illegal in the US. It prevents our country from becoming a haven and hot-spot for activity that harms the rule of law overseas and destabilizes foreign states, because we generally prefer that other countries not worry about that when setting their trade policies with us.
- delfinom 2y ago
  I think it's more the CIA doesn't like competition, lmao
  - vundercind 2y ago
    This is kinda true, even with a generous take on the CIA: they don’t want rogue freebooters screwing with their plans—why, you might destabilize a democracy they weren’t planning to replace with a dictatorship! But also the trading reputation of a country is kinda a common good that individuals can profit by tarnishing, which makes it a prime target for very-valid and probably-a-good-idea regulation of that sort.
    - mr_toad 2y ago
      So a state monopoly on soft power as well as hard power. Makes sense.
paulddraper 2y ago
US law prohibits this behavior. This is because the US wants other countries to confidently allow free trade or event privileged relations with it.

OnlineGladiator 2y ago

Because they also broke the law in the US.

vkou 2y ago

Because US companies bribing foreign officials is anti-competitive against US companies which don't.

crazygringo 2y ago
Although you've got to balance that against the fact that US companies not bribing foreign officials will result in them losing business to foreign companies that are perfectly happy to bribe. It's a good question to ask why Chinese companies are allowed to get business in Africa with bribery, and the US then doesn't allow its companies to compete on a level playing field with China. Why should the US take a stance at all? Why not let South Africa deal with it? It's not harming the US, is it?
- vkou 2y ago
  Foreign companies bribing foreign officials who operate in the US can also be sanctioned. And if they don't operate in the US, it's not the US's business to police something a company that has no presence in it does. It's very simple and consistent. Americans and American companies are subject to American laws. People and companies who are in America are also subject to American laws. If you are neither American nor in America, you are not. Nearly every country in the world follows a very similar set of rules regarding jurisdiction.
  - tzs 2y ago
    That doesn't really address the question they asked, which is more about whether or not it should be illegal rather than whether or not it is consistent. Your earlier comment justified it being illegal on the grounds that US companies bribing foreign governments is anti-competitive against other US companies that do not do so. That's an economic justification, not a moral justification. But if we are considering it economically rather than morally then we do have to consider what happens in the case of a foreign country where bribery is common and there are companies other than US companies that are competing there. In that case not allowing US companies to bribe does indeed level competition among US companies--they all lose equally to non-US companies. Is that actually a better economic outcome than allowing US companies to bribe (and thus compete with foreign companies) in countries where bribery is normal? That's a complicated question. It also might be a national security question if we continue heading into a new cold war kind of world. Is it better to have US companies operating in countries the US would like to influence even if those companies have to bribe to do so, or for US companies to stay out and cede influence to companies from countries on the others sides of that cold war?
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    > Nearly every country in the world follows a very similar set of rules regarding jurisdiction. Actually, no. As a general principle, countries do not pass/enforce laws regarding potential criminal activity that their citizens commit against citizens of other countries while in those other countries. To take an extreme example, if you murder a citizen of a foreign country while in that foreign country, your home country is generally not going to charge you with murder. If you come back home, they may extradite you to that foreign country at that country's request, since you broke the law there. But because you were in the foreign country and the victim was also foreign, it's not within domestic jurisdiction. Laws against bribes paid abroad break this rule. And in 2022 it was found that only two countries in the world actively enforce bribery outside their borders -- the US and Switzerland [1]. So no, your assertion that this is how nearly every country in the world operates, is completely false. It's actually a gigantic exception. (Things operate differently for military forces, war crimes, etc. But we're talking about regular civilian/corporate law here.) [1] https://us.transparency.org/news/exporting-corruption-2022-statement/ https://us.transparency.org/news/exporting-corruption-2022-s...

mountainb 2y ago

https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-fraud/foreign-corrupt-practices-act https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-fraud/foreign-corr...

ClumsyPilot 2y ago

In that case will USA honour guilty verdict of a foreign court and extradite bosses of McKenzey or you propose we just shelter criminals?

fallingknife 2y ago
Yeah, sounds good to me

bdangubic 2y ago

this comment would only makes sense if all US companies were strictly forbidden from doing any business of any kind outside the country's borders...

vundercind 2y ago

Bribing foreign officials is illegal in the US. It prevents our country from becoming a haven and hot-spot for activity that harms the rule of law overseas and destabilizes foreign states, because we generally prefer that other countries not worry about that when setting their trade policies with us.

delfinom 2y ago
I think it's more the CIA doesn't like competition, lmao
- vundercind 2y ago
  This is kinda true, even with a generous take on the CIA: they don’t want rogue freebooters screwing with their plans—why, you might destabilize a democracy they weren’t planning to replace with a dictatorship! But also the trading reputation of a country is kinda a common good that individuals can profit by tarnishing, which makes it a prime target for very-valid and probably-a-good-idea regulation of that sort.
  - mr_toad 2y ago
    So a state monopoly on soft power as well as hard power. Makes sense.

paulddraper 2y ago

US law prohibits this behavior. This is because the US wants other countries to confidently allow free trade or event privileged relations with it.