Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

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

There are a number of different reporting requirements that are needed to comply with the SEC. These include the provision of financial statements on a quarterly basis (10-Q) along with an annual report (10-K). These statements must adhere to a specific format that governs how financial statements are prepared, and how the information is presented. There are many sections to these forms that must be included. Moreover, the information must be accurate, and prepared to guidelines laid out in the Generally Accepted

In the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the audit committee is responsible for adequate supervision and reporting and for responding to:

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

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) establishes and improves standards of financial accounting and reporting for the guidance and education of the public.

The Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980 is a federal law that requires United States government agencies to report covert actions to Congress within a reasonable time frame and to make a formal written statement as to how each covert action was important to national security (lran-Contra Affail legal definition of Iran-Contra Affair, 2016). The Iran-Contra Affair was a political scandal that took place during the second term of the Reagan Administration. In late 1986, it was discovered that the United States had participated in illegal activities involving the sale of military equipment to Iran and in diverting a portion of the proceeds from those arms sales to assist the military activities of the Contra rebel forces in Nicaragua. As a result of the exposure of these operations, lawmakers and the public were left with many questions concerning policy violations, propriety, and violations of law. Some of the most important and sometimes most difficult questions were; whether or not the Rule of law was violated, what was the role of President Reagan as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, which legislations prohibited the activities referred to above and

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

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.

These provisions apply to everyone in the United States and issuers of security. More recently, they also apply to foreign firms and who want or plan to have a corrupt payment take place upon U.S. grounds.

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

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.

With my limited knowledge of the act, I would agree with many corporations that the FCPA seems to apply to a very broad range of situations that a company could find itself in and it does not seem to have clear guidelines. Corrupt acts include not only monetary bribes, but also “anything of value” (Wikipedia) which is intended to obtain a business advantage such as leisure travel, gifts, entertainment, real estate, or even student internships (SEC Spotlight). Foreign officials are not explicitly defined in the act, and can include the obvious political officials, candidates, parties, but also some not so obvious persons such as doctors or employees of the United Nations (Wikipedia). The accounting standards seem to be clearer, things need to

It is my opinion, that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act does not hampers U.S companies from doing business in the world. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act was set up to hold companies and individuals accountable for any bad behavior which includes corruption and bribes when doing business with the United States. “Also in 2013, self-service delivery and security system company Diebold Inc. agreed to pay a $48 million settlement for bribing officials in China and Indonesia and falsifying records in Russia in order to obtain and retain ATM contracts with state-owned and privately-owned banks in those countries. The bribes took the form of cash payments, gifts, and non-business related travel. Diebold attempted to hide the bribes by making

The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) share the power to

The key to the article “Cooking the Books” is to cover the business ethics of an accounting manager ordering one of his accountants to falsifying a company’s accounting ledger. The Generally Accepted Accounting Principle of expense recognition was not followed. The accounting manager was attempting to commit fraud for personal gain, he does this by manipulating the books to show higher revenue in order to meet the volume for management bonus. The accounting manager also created a hostile working environment by threating his accountant’s job security if he didn’t comply with his orders. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act will also be explored to see if there was a violation due to the unethical behavior of the