For many years, international firms and executives treated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) as the proverbial sleeping dog, best left alone. The FCPA was perceived as an overreaching and naïve attempt by the U.S. government to impose unrealistic moral standards on global business conduct. The statute was regarded as unenforced and unenforceable. Recently, however, the U.S. government has stepped up FCPA prosecutions. International organizations, such as the International Monetary Fund, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and Transparency International also have increased global interest in and efforts to combat corrupt business practices. In November 1997, OECD member nations and others signed an agreement that committed them to changing their national laws to fight bribery. This increased activity should be an early warning signal to executives that demonstrates the higher risk of exposure of and the higher level of legal and business consequences for corrupt practices.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Bar Association Section of International Law and Practice (1996), “Corrupt Practices in the Conduct of International Business,”International Lawyer, 30(1), 193–98.
2.
BencivengaDominic (1997), “Anti-Bribery Campaign: SEC Cracks Down on Illegal Payments Abroad,”New York Law Journal, (April 10), 5.
3.
BrownSeyom (1995), New Forces, Old Forces, and the Future of World Politics.New York: HarperCollins.
DuganChristopher F., and LechtmanVladimir (1997), “The FCPA in Russia and Other Former Communist Countries,”American Journal of International Law, 91(2), 378–88.
9.
EarleBeverley H. (1989), “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Amendments: The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act's Focus on Improving Investment Opportunities,”Cleveland State Law Review, 37, 549–84.
10.
EarleBeverley H. (1996), “The United States’ Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the OECD Anti-Bribery Recommendation: When Moral Suasion Won't Work, Try the Money Argument,”Dickinson Journal of International Law, 14(Winter), 207–35.
11.
The Economist (1997), “Kicking the Kickbacks,” (May 31), 61–62.
12.
FlandersStephanie (1997), “Clear Thinking on Corruption,”Financial Times, (June 23), 10.
13.
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (1977), Pub. L. No. 95–213, Title 1, 91 Stat. 1494–1498, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1, 78dd-2.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1994), Recommendation on Bribery in International Business Transactions, C(94)75/FINAL [available http://www.oecd.org/daf/cmis/bribery/bribery.html].
20.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1996), Recommendation on the Tax Deductibility of Bribes to Foreign Public Officials, C(96)27/FINAL [available http://www.oecd.org/daf/cmis/bribery/bribery.htm].
21.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1997a), Recommendation of the Council on Combating Bribery in International Business Transactions, C(97)123/FINAL [available http://www.oecd.org/daf/cmis/bribery/bribery.htm].
22.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1997b), Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business (Preliminary Text) [available at http://www.oecd.org/daf/cmis/bribery/20novle.htm].
23.
OECD Committee on Fiscal Affairs (1997), “Implementing the 1996 Recommendation on the Tax Deductibility of Bribes to Foreign Public Officials” [available at http://www.oecd.org/daf/cmis/bribtax.htm].
24.
OECD Development Assistance Committee (1997), “The DAC Recommendation on Anti-Corruption Proposals for Aid-Funded Procurement” [available at http://www.oecd.org/daf/cmis/bribdac.htm].
PitmanJoanna (1997), “Treaty Spells Payback Time for Corrupt Businessmen,”The London Times, (June 11).
27.
Political and Economic Risk Consultancy Limited (1997), “Corruption in Asia in 1997,” (March 26) [available http://asiarisk.com/lib10.html].
28.
SalbuSteven R. (1997) “Bribery in the Global Market: A Critical Analysis of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act,”Washington & Lee Law Review, 54(Winter), 229–87.
29.
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Montedison, S.p.A. (1996), Civil Action No. 96-CV2631 (D. D.C. November 21), L.R. 15164 (November 21).
30.
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Triton Energy Corp. (1997a), Civil Action No. 97–
31.
CV00401 (D. D.C. February 21), L.R. 15266 (February 27).
32.
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Triton Energy Corp. (1997b), Civil Action No. 97-CV00401 (D. D.C. February 21), L.R. 15396 (June 26).
33.
SheffetMary Jane (1995), “The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988: Did They Change Corporate Behavior?”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 14(2), 290–300.
