Corruption in Vietnam

In today’s ever changing and competitive modern world of business, it is critical for the companies to have activities internationally. In order to prohibit frauds and illegal activities, several acts and documents have been elaborated. One of the documents is Foreign Corrupt Practices Act that has been enacted in the 1970’s, as a result of SEC investigation of several U.S. companies that made illegal payments to foreign governmental officials, politicians, and political parties (Barnes 73). The FCPA had a critical impact on the way U.S. firms do business. Companies that did not comply with FCPA have been subject of criminal and civil enforcement actions that later resulted in huge fines and sentences for

This case portrays the widely propagated and accepted phenomena of bribes and corruption in developing countries. Specifically how it affects every sector of the Ukrainian society, therefore making it difficult for the American investors to establish companies there and to prosper solely on doing good business. The case describes the types of obstacles and ethical dilemmas being created for the investors as a result of bribery and extortion.

1. If you were representing the Company in this case, what argument (facts and reasons) could you make that the confidentiality agreement had a legitimate business purpose and was applied appropriately to Martinez?

This review will address several issues associated with the legal, business, and ethics related to the case. First, it will describe the legality of the case by reviewing the

In 1977, Congress passed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which makes it unlawful for U.S. businesspersons or companies to pay, with money or anything else of value, to foreign officials to secure beneficial contracts. The anti-bribery requirements of the FCPA have applied to all U.S. persons since 1977. In 1998, certain amendments were revised and the anti-bribery requirements now apply to foreign firms and persons who cause an act in continuance of bribery within the United States. The government was attempting to restricted illegal behavior, which is why they implemented the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act after the SEC discovered that over 400 companies were sending corrupt payments to foreign government officials and

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977- is a U.S. Federal Law that prohibits any U.S. citizen from bribing a foreign official for the purpose of obtaining

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (FCPA) evolved from investigations by the Office of the Special Prosecutor that provided evidence of illegal acts perpetrated by U.S. firms in foreign lands. More than 400 U.S. companies admitted to making questionable payments to various foreign governments and political parties as part of an amnesty program (U.S. Department of Justice http://www.usdoj.gov). Given the environment of the 1970s and the proliferation of white-collar crimes (e.g., insider trading, bribery, false financial statements, etc.), particularly the payments made to foreign officials by corporations, Congress felt obligated to introduce legislation that led to the act. Congress 's objective was to restore confidence in the manner U.S. companies’ transacted business.

Each of these jurisdictions works together to keep aspects of FCPA from being violated. This law is not always prohibiting all payments to the foreign officials. The FCPA has an exception for anti-bribery prohibitions and that is called “ routine government action.” This exception is also given the names “facilitating” or “ grease payment.” The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act defines this “routine government action” as for a foreign official to perform in obtaining permits, licenses, or other official documents that enable then to do business in that country, processing government papers such as visa and work orders, protection services and conducting inspections, and anything that has similar nature (6). The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) has two affirmative defenses and they consist of assertion that payment in question was lawful under the laws of the foreign country, and the assertion that the payment was valued a bona fide expenditure (6). This affirmative defense is aimed to be for the issuer, domestic concern, or other person. In this affirmative defense there must be some type of written law authorizing or supporting the payment. The penalties for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act are different from the provision that they fall under. For an individual and it is from the anti bribery

Since 1977, the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA have applied to all U.S. persons and certain foreign issuers of securities. With the enactment of certain amendments in 1998, the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA now also apply to foreign firms and persons who cause, directly or through agents, an act in furtherance of such a corrupt payment to take place within the territory of the United States.

While reading this case analysis, The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act came into discussion as an underlying factor in Weihardt’s decision. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act was enacted for the purpose of making it unlawful for certain classes of persons and entities to make payments to foreign government officials to assist in obtaining or retaining business. This practice applies to Weinhardt in the fact that he was given the opportunity to give Lee a bribe to obtain Lees’ business.

Corruption schemes have differences as well as similarities. Bribery is a scheme that impacts a legal deed by proposing, providing, obtaining, or lobbying something of value to change the outcome in a favorable fashion. On the other hand commercial is similar in that something of value is offered in exchange for a certain business decision. Illegal gratuities are perks given as a reward to an employee in exchange for a decision. Most of the time illegal gratuities influence employees to make decisions not in the best interest of the organization. Economic extortion has to do with an organization or individual making a payment that will bring unwanted attention or impairment to the organization. These types of corruption schemes are very similar; however the differences exist in the conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest occur

Author Scott Nette clearly explains that in July 2007, Anthony Tesvich, Melissa Tesvich, James P. Robinson and Ronald K. Jonston was Investigated, charged and convicted on the Foreign Corrupt Act. “The Foreign Corrupt Act States that it is illegal for an US person, entity and certain applicable foreign entity to make and/or accept bribes or offer any inducement for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business with an US firm.” – Scott Nette

The Hong Kong office of Salomon Brothers, a U.S. investment bank, estimates that to meet the expanding demand for telecommunication service in Asia, companies will need:

5. Discuss whether the payments outlined on pages 12 and 13 are foreign corrupt practices.

Define facilitating payments and bribes. Discuss the difference between them. Which are all allowed and which are prohibited? Explain