3 ms·

Let's say you were a US-based multinational that wanted to expand your market share overseas, at any means necessary, even if it means using tactics that would

Let's say you were a US-based multinational that wanted to expand your market share overseas, at any means necessary, even if it means using tactics that would be frowned upon or illegal in the US. Isn't the "this was an unauthorized move by a subcontractor" the exact defense you would plan to use then when the dirty tactics were exposed?

j_s 14y ago
Unfortunately, it works.
- nikcub 14y ago
  not anymore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act
  - j_s 14y ago
    "this was an unauthorized move by a subcontractor" works. Ask airbnb, etc.
    - nikcub 14y ago
      ahh yes, if you are reading this thread please go down and then back up here.
  - j_s 14y ago
    Also, NoPiece pointed out in this discussion that the FCPA probably applies only to goverment officials: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4397414 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4397414 (Is this what you were referencing in saying 'go down and then back up'? not sure what you were getting at there, sorry...)
  - brown9-2 14y ago
    I'm not sure if it's a closed case quite yet. A few months ago the NY Times unearthed that Walmart's Mexico subsidiary was responsible for bribing lots of government officials, and that the home office in the US covered it up and promoted the people in charge. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/business/at-wal-mart-in-mexico-a-bribe-inquiry-silenced.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/business/at-wal-mart-in-me... The case is still pending, AFAIK, but the law itself doesn't make the practice non-existent.
    - mbreese 14y ago
      Oracle just settled a case today based upon their Indian subsidiary keeping a secret slush fund. It ended up being a "pay a fine with no statement of wrongdoing", but the FCPA does have some teeth. http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21328339/oracle-pay-2-million-settle-india-bribery-charges http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21328339/oracle-pay-2...

j_s 14y ago

Unfortunately, it works.

nikcub 14y ago
not anymore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act
- j_s 14y ago
  "this was an unauthorized move by a subcontractor" works. Ask airbnb, etc.
  - nikcub 14y ago
    ahh yes, if you are reading this thread please go down and then back up here.
- j_s 14y ago
  Also, NoPiece pointed out in this discussion that the FCPA probably applies only to goverment officials: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4397414 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4397414 (Is this what you were referencing in saying 'go down and then back up'? not sure what you were getting at there, sorry...)
- brown9-2 14y ago
  I'm not sure if it's a closed case quite yet. A few months ago the NY Times unearthed that Walmart's Mexico subsidiary was responsible for bribing lots of government officials, and that the home office in the US covered it up and promoted the people in charge. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/business/at-wal-mart-in-mexico-a-bribe-inquiry-silenced.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/business/at-wal-mart-in-me... The case is still pending, AFAIK, but the law itself doesn't make the practice non-existent.
  - mbreese 14y ago
    Oracle just settled a case today based upon their Indian subsidiary keeping a secret slush fund. It ended up being a "pay a fine with no statement of wrongdoing", but the FCPA does have some teeth. http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21328339/oracle-pay-2-million-settle-india-bribery-charges http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21328339/oracle-pay-2...