International Bribery Regulation And The Bribery Act 2010

When the U.S. stood completely alone in its legislative quest to curtail foreign bribery, the catastrophic scenario did not materialize. “As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted four years after the implementation of the FCPA in a study called the Impact of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act on U.S. Business; claims that U.S. companies have lost sales…are difficult, if not impossible, to substantiate and quantify” (Graham, 1984).   Further, a paper published in the Journal of International Business used published data to test the competitive disadvantage theory and found that “the FCPA had not negatively affected the competitive position of American industry in the world marketplace” (Graham, 1984).   Even then, when the American industry was the only one worldwide facing these kinds of restrictions, anti-bribery laws did not negatively impact their export performance or market share.

OECD published Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and Related Documents to prevent bribery and corruption. The aim of this convention was making the bribery of a foreign public official a crime under their laws (International Monetary Fund, OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, 2001). This document recommends to member countries that:

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has been pursued by government agencies recently as the SEC, the FBI, and Department of Justice are cracking down on international business corruption. Companies are working harder at expanding economically in the market by doing business with individuals and other companies in foreign countries. Foreign countries are not always in compliance with US laws and regulations, causing US companies who deal with them issues with compliance on the home front. Because of these ongoing issues congress decided to introduce the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and to prosecute foreign companies for corrupt activities within the United States. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is a federal law that was amended in 1977,

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.

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.

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

There are many corporate organizations that have expanded their business opportunities outside of the U.S. Consequently, these global organizations are required to conform to The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (FCPA). Under the FCPA, anti-bribery and accounting provisions exist for companies to identify unlawful acts and comply with requirements by maintaining accurate records of transactions and implementing internal controls. (DoJ, 2015a, FCPA: An Overview section, para. 2-3).

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

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

The foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits paying or offering anything of value to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining or keeping a business. The FCPA was enacted by congress in 1977 due to various reports that were made by the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) reported different issues concerning bribery and illegal payments by United Sates companies. The FCPA states that it’s unlawful to make payments to foreign officials; having a corrupt intend that will make a foreign official to misuse his or her position in directing a business. The FCPA intends to reinstitute public confidence in the integrity of the American business system.

In my opinion every country is corrupt and has pliantly of bribery in their governments, businesses, and even households. Bribery in its most basic form is the practice of giving gifts of monetary value to a client or potential customer to persuade their decision. According to Black Law’s Dictionary, bribery is “The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.” This practice constitutes a crime in most developed countries and is highly controversial. As with any controversy, bribery has its advantages as well as problems. Common advantages of bribery include gaining business without needing to have superior quality or services, building

The FCPA (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 was passed to ensure that U.S. firms do not engage in illegal bribing of foreign government officials to assist in obtaining or retaining business. Specifically, this act prohibits any offer, promise to pay, payment or even authorization of payment to a foreign official to influence it, secure any advantage or to assist in obtaining or retaining business.

America has always been a land of freedom, prosperity, and rules. Save the times of the Wild West the United States government has attempted to exude a persona of ethicality. It seems that whenever a financial crisis/fraud/bribery scandal arises new laws are passed to help prevent future problems. Such is the case with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act - passed with the purpose of keeping companies that do business in the US ethical in their business dealings. The main purpose of the act is to prevent companies from paying bribes to foreign officials, though there are other provisions included. It is only fitting that Wal-Mart, the largest retail store in the United States (2013 Top Global Retailers) has had allegations of wrongdoing related to the act. Wal-Mart was reported to have paid over $24 million in bribes to officials in Mexico. Why would Wal-Mart need to be bribing Mexican officials when they are so large and powerful themselves? And how did the US government get involved? These questions are the purpose of this paper.

The United States Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission rarely enforced the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, enacted in 1977, until 2010— over a decade since its modern reform in 1998. This surge in penalization of unethical acts such as bribery and other methods used to ensure foreign business ventures has been called a “new era of FCPA enforcement” by the DOJ, resulting in $1.8 billion in payments accrued from domestic firms and their foreign partners, compared to $300,000 in 2000 (Kohler). Because of ambiguity within the legislation, especially the undefined terms “foreign official” and “obtain or retain business,” the U.S. government is able to manipulate the FCPA for monetary gain, as well as shape foreign economies based upon their own values.