Foreign Partnership Act Case Study

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 review will address several issues associated with the legal, business, and ethics related with the case. First, it will address the legality of the case by reviewing the difference between a written and oral contract, and the results of recovering fees. Next, this review will analyze the business effect of the case as it relates to the monetary bottom line and Chuckrow’s attempt to protect his profits. Subsequently, it will highlight the unethical behavior of Chuckrow and its potential effects on future subcontractors’ trust in

    In light of this topic, another portion of the original writing, “...excessive fines” can be discussed. Rather than all acts leading to the same punishment, there are varying levels of severity to each issue. A very common example of this would be tax evasion. (1) Tax evasion essentially means filling out tax forms with knowingly incorrect figures and data. (2) As a direct result of tax evasion, convicted criminals are presented with penalties varying from either 1-5 years in prison or a $100,000 fine maximum. Once again, variables play a tremendous role of importance in this form of punishment. Often times, tax evasion is played off into a fine and while incarceration is still a prevalent issue it is far less more

1. You recently retired from government contracting work and established a consulting company (fully consistent with government ethics laws and rules, of course) with the primary focus of advising potential government contractors and subcontractors. Mr. Johnny Jones, of The Johnny Jones Flooring and Construction Company has approached you with a question. Jones and his company are potential subcontractors (they, obviously, specialize in flooring) on a federal construction contract worth a little over two million dollars ($ 2,000,000.00) recently awarded to the Jimmy Smith Construction Company (Jimmy Smith, the prime contractor). Neither Johnny nor his company have ever been part of a government contract

The act outlines four liability levels, each with increased punitive responses. The minimum penalty increases greatly between each level, with the maximum recourse amounting to one and a half million dollars. Offenders that violate the law unknowingly initially receive the lowest fine and the opportunity to correct the offense in 30-days to avoid fines altogether.

the penalties for those who violate the Act is possible to reach discipline, discharge, or even paying a fine that does not exceed $1000 with the same price for the lawsuit cost.

In October of 2011 investigators ended Kerry F, Khan’s schemes of bribery and kickbacks. For several years Khan had managed the Army Corps of Engineers, and had collected 30 million dollars through his trickery. He did so by hiring subcontractors that he made inflate their bills by adding products of services they didn’t actually do. He would certify it and

Bribery weakens competition and diminishes free trade which can affect companies, shareholders, and stakeholders. Jacob Franklin knowingly extended bribes to governments and contractors while knowing it was against company policy. Jacob engaged in bribery even though he knew it was wrong because he was advised that it was common practice at Richard Drilling. “In 1977, President Carter signed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The law made it illegal to bribe foreign officials. The maximum punishments for violators were set at $100,000 and 5 years in jail. Companies can be fined millions” (Bredeson, 2012, p.301). Not only was extending the bribe against company policy, it was against law and could cost Jacob and Richardson Drilling money and freedom.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(b), a defendant is guilty of bribery if they accept something of value of $5000 or more from another person with the intent to be influenced in their actions as an agent of such government. But this circuit has yet to decide if specific quid-pro-quo intent is required for a conviction. In deciding whether this intent is an element of the crime, will the mere inference of agreement suffice or the more heightened standard of an express agreement?

The penalties consist of civil and criminal for civil violations it can cost up to 100.00 each violation, and 25,000 a year. Criminal penalties range up to 50,000 and one year in prison for some offences. So there are some penalties the Office for Civil Rights can impose. Numbers show that many

Yes, I think that the payments outlined on pages 12 and 13 should be considered corrupt practices because of the way they were registered in the company’s books -it was in compliance with the FCPA because of the anti-bribery provision and the books and records provision.

6. Evaluate whether the changes in Exhibits 4 and 5 are likely to stop future foreign corrupt practices at Baker Hughes.

According to The United States Department of Justice, 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”. Therefore, Mike O’Brian is facing both an ethical and legal dilemma. If O’Brian is to provide $100,000, plus a “ten percent commission on future parts-and-service revenues”, and agrees with this stipulation, he will be committing an illegal act to both obtain and retain the sales business in Africa. O’Brian has limited options as to making a decision and how he will do so. By keeping the contract offer in place, O’Brian will face ethical dilemmas and will need to determine who he will carry out the sale while obtaining his commission.

The complainant---Corel Corporation’s position is that, “the government procurement and practices were built upon the principles of fairness, openness and transparency and the obligation to provide equal opportunities to all firms and individuals competing for government work. ” (Canadian International Trade Tribunal, 1998) According to the CITT file PR-98-012 and PR-98-014; from May-15-1998 to July-6-1998, Corel submitted five lists of questions and one extension on the bid closing date relating to the RFP. Within only less than two months time, with all the questions that had to ask and all the information that was missing without an extension, Corel claim that they “had not received all the information necessary to formulate a responsive bid. “ (Canadian International Trade Tribunal, 1998) The first complaint from Corel is that the RFP in this case failed to meet these standards and Corel specifically two main concerns: the structure of the RFP and Corel’s unsuccessful attempt to get information. (Canadian International Trade Tribunal, 1998) The second complaint from Corel is that after the first complaint, the department still did not provide sufficient information relate to the RFP and even refused to give extension for the closing date to allow Corel and other company to have sufficient time to get more information and prepare a bid (Canadian International Trade Tribunal, 1998). Corel was generally seeking more necessary information about the

Penalties under the EEA of 1996 if a person is found guilty can be fined up to $500 thousand and serve 10 years in jail. A company can be fined up to five million but if it serves to benefit, a foreign country or a foreign agent fines are up to $10 million and up to 15 years in jail.