Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)

However, not all companies succeed to comply with all regulation, even though apparently it looks that all operations are lawful. For instance, United States vs. Kay case, No. 05-20604, 2007 U.S. could lead to broader enforcement actions under the FCPA (“FCPA Gets Broader Reach”). The company President (Douglas Murphy) and Vice President for Caribbean Operations (David Kay) at American Rice, Inc. took several steps in order to reduce sales and taxes costs to rice exported to Haiti. Even though their actions included paying officials to resolve tax issues, underreporting imports to reduce duties and taxes, paying officials to accept the underreporting, the district court granted a motion to dismiss the indictment, holding that the scope of FCPA did not extend to paying foreign officials for the purpose of reducing taxes. In contrast, the court of appeal reversed in United States vs. Kay, holding that bribes paid to foreign officials in consideration for unlawful evasion of sales taxes fall within FCPA. As a result, the jury found Kay and Murphy guilty of violating the FCPA by paying foreign officials to retain their business in Haiti (“FCPA Gets Broader Reach”). Moreover, the court rejected defendants’ argument that its interpretation of the FCPA extended criminal liability under the statute

A criminologist blames economic recession and complex financial system as major reasons for the rising white collar crimes in the U.S.

According to Benston (1977) an unaware public pays for government-required accounting disclosure. Sunstein (1999) claims that disclosure of information allows the federal government to control public and private conduct. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Over the decades accounting regulations have come from various sources. The Securities and Exchange Commission as well as the Internal Revenue Service and Interstate Commerce Commission are examples of regulatory bodies that promulgate accounting regulations. A more recent example occurred during the 1970s. During the Watergate era there were a number of investigations, some of which affected American business. One of the investigations, conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 1975, revealed that 19 publiclyheld corporations had made illegal campaign contributions and that these contributions were made from cash accounts that had not been recorded on the corporation’s books. (Heldack, 1977) This prompted the SEC to launch an investigation into what were considered ―questionable payments.‖ What came out of the investigation was that many U.S. multinational corporations were making hundreds of millions of dollars in ―questionable payments‖ to foreign officials to obtain business. As a result, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) was unanimously adopted by Congress in 1977. Bribery of foreign officials to obtain business for the corporation

Evidence of bribery or erroneous accounting is enough proof for the government to file a case against an individual or company regardless of intent, under the FCPA laws (Clayton, 2011). There are three types of improper violations for the anti-bribery provision and they include: the issuer, domestic concern, the foreign national and businesses. The issuers are the ones that are registered in the US or are required to file Security and Exchange Commission. Domestic concern is any person or business that has their place of business in the US or is under the US law. Lastly, the foreign nationals and business in which deals with corrupt payments that are made in the United States, there are also the third parties and agents that are as well included and have the same conditions apply to them as they do to the issuer, domestic concern, and the foreign national and businesses. The second provision that is involved with the FCPA is the Accounting provision and that consist of contracts enforcing Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC enforces the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by bringing the civil actions against the issuers and their officers, directors, employees, and agents. FCPA has two accounting requirements that are recordkeeping and internal controls. The recordkeeping is there to ensure that the books, records, and accounts are held at the standards of what the company should be at. This is designed to cover business

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 (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.

Under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) in a criminal or civil law suit a pattern of racketeering activity must be ascertained by proving at least two acts of racketeering activity have been performed within an interval of ten years. This law could not be upheld in Sedina, SPRL v Inrex Co., 473 US 479 (1985) as two predicate acts could not be maintained (Twomey, 2013).

Many companies are trying to expand economically in the market by doing business with an individual or another company in foreign countries. These businesses are engaging in into using improper ways of payments that are leading to secret bribes to the foreign public officials. Foreign countries are not always in compliance with the laws and they tend not to follow them. Having these problems with the US and all the millions of dollars that have been passed they wanted to take a more affirmative approach and be able to correct the problem. That is when congress decided to introduce the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to prosecute foreign companies for corrupt payments within the United States. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is a federal

During the years 2001 through 2005 According to the information and plea document, three Miami-Dade County telecommunications companies executed a series of contracts with Telecommunications D’Haiti that allowed the companies’ customers to place telephone calls to Haiti. Joel Esquenazi, an executive of one of the companies, was charged with making illegal payments to officials at Telecommunications D’Haiti. In exchange, the foreign officials presented business advantages on the Miami-Dade County companies, including issuing preferred telecommunication rates the number of minutes for which payments was owed, and giving a variety of credit to owed sums. A shell company, owed by alleged co-conspirator Juan Diaz, and co-defendant Marguerite

Since 2007, researchers have found that a large percentage of cases regarding issue of white-collar crimes- especially those involving big financial institutions- have been resolved by the justice department making deals with these corporations and their executives.

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.

1. Describe the economic and social impact of bribes and other similar payments in emerging economics.

The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) was enacted to safeguard against those acts of persons which are aimed at making tainted money appear as untainted. To take a simple example, if a person earns money through, say, dealing in narcotic drugs and thereafter takes some steps whereby it appears to have been earned through some legitimate business, such as running a laundry shop (the classic example), it is money-laundering . Thus, the ingredients of the Act are clear: there has to be an offence, monies have to be earned through such offence and then an act should be made delinking such earnings from the offence and linking it with another act that is not an offence .

With task forces in place to fact-check appropriate White-Collar Crime convictions, going forward; judges will continue to have assistance from various watch dog groups to prevent overcriminalization (NACDL, p1). Overcriminalization is simply an over thinking of crimes whereas maybe a fine should close the case, there may be jail time instead (NACDL, p1). Overcriminalization causes violation of local laws to be treated as federal crimes. This process must be changed as reviewed by Congress or (at the least) reviewed on a case by case basis by the judges that see these types of cases (NACDL, p1).

Combating fraud in the private sector is a difficult task. Trying to combat fraud in the public sector is daunting. In 1999 15.7% of the American workforce were employed by a government entity (federal, state, and local).[1] Mirroring society, government will have its share of perpetrators. The difference from the private sector is in the scope of the fraud committed, the loss of the public trust, the blaring headlines from news media, and difficulty in making necessary changes to combat the problems.