The Foreign Corrupt Policies Act (FPCA)

The mistrust most Americans feel toward the government officials and political parities of today can be traced back to the Watergate scandal of 1972, which led to the resignation of an American president. The crimes of the Watergate scandal included political burglary, bribery, extortion, wiretapping (phone tapping), conspiracy, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, tax fraud, illegal use of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), illegal campaign contributions, and use of taxpayers' money for private purposes.

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

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

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.

What are actions of treason, bribery or high crime misdemeanors worthy of impeachment? “To decide the meaning of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ we might start by looking at the intention of the people who wrote the Constitution. There are two principal sources for gauging their intent: the notes (mostly taken by James Madison) from the debates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787; and the Federalist Papers, a group of essays (mostly by Madison and Alexander Hamilton) written in support of ratification of the Constitution” (Alan Hirsch). Basically, impeachment is not linked to criminal law and the test for impeachment is not satisfied by all crimes, but a criminal action is required.

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).

Watergate was the name of the biggest political scandal in United States history. It included various illegal activities constructed to help President Richard Nixon win reelection in the 1972 presidential elections. Watergate included burglary, wire tapping, violations of campaign financing laws, and sabotage and attempted use of government agencies to harm political opponents. It also involved a cover-up of conduct. There were about 40 people charged with crimes in the scandal and related crimes. Most of them were convicted by juries or pleaded guilty.

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.

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 “grease exception” also known routine government payments exception or facilitation payments created by Congress as an exception or defense under the FCPA to allow permissible non-discretionary payments to be made by US businesses to help increase competition with foreign competitors. “Grease” payments are small payments made to foreign officials to ensure faster performance of a routine action such as setting up electrical or phone service, delivering mail, processing paperwork or other administrative process and “such payments are so common that preventing US companies from paying them would effectively bar these companies from doing business”1,2.

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

It would be convenient to start this research paper by stating that corruption is a challenge mainly for businesses in developing countries and that it is unrelated to the current affliction of the economy in the United States. It would also be convenient to claim corruption has declined in America as a result of awareness raising campaigns and the numerous anti-corruption laws. But none of those aforementioned statements would be true. Corruption is not the exception, but rather the rule in today’s business practices. In 2004, Daniel Kaufmann, a senior fellow at Brookings Institution and former director at the World Bank, calculated an index of "legally corrupt" manifestations which is defined as the extent of undue influence