I've gone through various "International Training" sessions at my company and one of the things they teach is that if a foreign official says something like, "hmmm... your papers are invalid, but I can help you out for $100" or similar, you should pay and immediately report (and expense) it on return. I know one coworker who went through this traveling through a small country.
That is illegal according to US law. At my company, we are explicitly taught the opposite: paying "facilitation fees" is prohibited and illegal and that the employer will fire you and throw you under the bus if they find out you did so. They explicitly mention that this is not allowed even if it is the norm in the country in which you are doing business.
I have never heard of a major company that didn't advise its employees to pay bribes abroad.
Whether it's legal or illegal is almost aside the point, someone can choose between either breaking some arcane, unenforced US law, or potentially spending months/years in some hellhole of a third-world jail or prison while the Embassy slowly negotiates a release. And in some places, that's assuming someone doesn't just "disappear" or get robbed and shot on the spot.
It'd often be better to get fired and federally charged than to risk what your company advocates. In a worst case scenario, at least you know what you're getting, at least you'll have competent legal defense, and at least there will be a high -- virtually unprovable -- standard of evidence required for a federal jury to indict.
> I have never heard of a major company that didn't advise its employees to pay bribes abroad.
That would be conspiracy. No, absolutely this does not happen. Now, at the micro level it does happen that individual executives rope their employees in to fraud at their direction. But absoutely no "company" anywhere "advises" its employees to pay bribes as a matter of policy.
I think most companies would prefer their employees not go missing in some African hellhole or get incarcerated on bullshit charges wherever.
There's little difference between bribes and highway banditry in some places, and not playing along will very likely not end well for you.
Recourse in cases of abuses of power is already hit-and-miss in so-called "civilized" countries. I wouldn't count on it in countries that can't even agree on who's in charge somewhere.
People are actually downvoting my post (and the one where someone confirmed that this happened at three Fortune 100 companies).
It's one thing to be a boy scout, but it's another entirely to get accused of severe, frivolous charges while abroad, or to drive up to an armed cartel/militant roadblock, and then say "I'm sorry, bribes are against corporate policy and illegal in my country" when asked for $50.
Shame on any company for creating a clause like that and risking their employees lives instead of just remaining silent on the matter. Make no mistake, bribery isn't optional in many parts of the world, it's a robbery by a uniformed official.
I think people in the overall thread are getting confused about different kinds of bribes.
A bribe needed to get a lucrative contract for your company: not ok.
Paying off a local cop so he won't throw you in jail for no reason: totally ok.
The US is concerned with preventing the former, not the latter. I would be surprised if any US company is advocating people pay the first kind of bribe, at least publicly, as that's quite illegal in the US (I'm sure it happens, but as quietly as possible). But I would not be surprised if US companies tell employees to pay the second kind of bribe, as well they should.
You are entirely incorrect. One of the largest mining, minerals and petroleum companies in Australia has it right there in the employee handbook sitting on your desk on Day One.
Yes, this happens frequently. They are termed "facilitation payments" rather than bribes, they are budgeted and accounted for as expenses, and the official direction of briefing materials at at least three Fortune 100 companies (that I know of) directs people to pay them.
I am not sure why you were being downvoted, exactly. While there is a difference between the two terms, it seems like an area that firms could easily fudge, until someone actually investigated the specific case.
> What is the Difference Between Bribery and Facilitation Payments?
> Facilitation payments are different from bribes in that they’re offered or solicited in return for a service a person or a company is entitled to receive. In contrast, bribes are offered in return for undue and illegal advantage.
[0]
Do we know if these executives were deserving of the CCP? It would appear they were, from the post’s link:
> Sung—second in rank only to Sheriff Laurie Smith in the sheriff’s office—is accused of deliberately holding back four concealed carry weapons (CCW) permits for Apple’s security team until the Cupertino-based corporation agreed to donate 200 iPads worth about $75,000 to the Sheriff’s Office, Rosen said. Sung and Jensen allegedly worked together to solicit the exchange of CCW permits for the tech donation from Apple.
The much larger corruption seems to be on the LEO side to me. Which of the two actors swore an oath to uphold the law?
If it wasn’t for clickbait, the headline would focus on the LEO.
There's a difference between a bribe to win a contract or similar vs. the case where you feel in danger - e.g. you come across a roadblock in rural Mexico and an armed official wants a "clear up your paperwork" payoff to let you pass. That's the scenario the training covers.
Exactly, and it's clearly permitted to pay in that case because being able to travel involves routine govt action. I have no idea where this legal advice is coming from.
Except most of these guys either paid the bribe or had it ready to go until they heard sirens. These guys could have easily reported the solicitation but instead they participated in it. This isn't the case where a cop is threatening to throw you in jail or plant drugs on you unless you pay up right now, this is a state permit process. No one had their life or freedom directly threatened over not having more CCW permits for their security team.
The sheriff deputies fucked up. The CCW applicants fucked up. Everyone got caught and everyone is going to suffer the consequences.
Reporting it would have meant no chance of getting the permits. I am not going to fault anyone who plays along with a facilitation payment even when it's the US government demanding it.
To be fair, the Wikipedia pages on law that I've read are quite good (IANAL, just interested), probably because they rarely touch on politics.
Or, perhaps it's that those editors who distort other areas of the wiki to fit their political biases aren't interested in law. It could be either or both (or neither, but I'm biased towards myself;)
I have seen both in training, but in different contexts.
jbuzbee is referring to international travel training you go through if you apply to travel to/through a "red"/"restricted" country. They are not referring to the generic "don't take a bribe for a contract" training.
IANAL, but I think a general rule of thumb is: will this bribe get me out being detained against my will (or worse) for doing nothing wrong? If yes, then it's ok. But: if I don't pay this bribe, the only consequence will be that my company doesn't win this contract -- that's not an ok bribe to pay.
> The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 is a United States federal law that prohibits U.S. citizens and entities from bribing foreign government officials to benefit their business interests.
> Regarding payments to foreign officials, the act draws a distinction between bribery and facilitation or "grease payments", which may be permissible under the FCPA, but may still violate local laws. The primary distinction is that grease payments or facilitation payments are made to an official to expedite his performance of the routine duties he is already bound to perform
one of the things they teach is that if a foreign official says something like, "hmmm... your papers are invalid, but I can help you out for $100" or similar, you should pay and immediately report (and expense) it on return
I used to work for a company with a similar policy and training. "Airport tax" was how it was expensed, even if you weren't flying.
Sounds like there's a distinction under the FCPA between actual bribery (illegal) and grease payments (legal), where an official requests a bribe to do their job.
There is an exception under the foreign corrupt practices act (FCPA) that if you do as parent poster described (pay and report as such) then it is legal. Otherwise you are correct, it is highly illegal.
In many countries everyone has to pay a facilitation fee (aka bribe) for routine govt actions.
These are for things like:
obtaining permits, licenses, or other official
documents to qualify a person to do business in a foreign country;
processing governmental papers, such as visas
and work orders; providing police protection, mail pickup and
delivery, or scheduling inspections associated
with contract performance or inspections
related to transit of goods across country;
providing phone service, power and water
supply, loading and unloading cargo, or
protecting perishable products or commodities
from deterioration; etc
How in the WORLD to folks giving legal advice here not have even this basic understanding of the law?
But also, it seems like it's a bit of a grey area:
"As a general principle of the Foreign Corrupt Practises Act (FCPA), in the United States, firms and businesses in the US are prohibited from making any payments to foreign officials for routine governmental action. However, any payment that does not effect the decision of the foreign official is not considered a bribe. For example, a businessman in the States may make a payment to a government official to expedite a deal or transaction. Such a payment is considered a grease payment (and not a bribe), which is lawful under FCPA.
In this regard, it becomes necessary to understand when an amount paid turns from a grease payment to a bribe, which is illegal under law. This is a grey area under the law which is still to be clarified. There are numerous factors that could play a role in demarcation between the two, which include: the amount of payment, the frequency of the payment, the status/level of the foreign official to whom the payment has been made, the outcome of the case regarding which the payment was made, etc."[1]
The training at my company is pretty strict about never making any "grease payments", so certainly there's some doubt.
My company training also states that in situations where you are in possible danger, you should pay the bribe and then document and report it (with the company). For instance, you and a co-worker is in a car accident, you are fine, but your co-worker has a broken leg, you go with your co-worker to the hospital, upon arriving at the hospital you are told the doctor has gone home for the day, but for the right price, someone might be able to get him/her back. There is a "Safe Harbor" exception in these cases, however you must document and report.
Yep, they did and do. And we are a US company with lots of lawyers. My coworker was at a tiny island airport in the middle of the Pacific. If he didn't pay, he wasn't going anywhere.
I had corporate training, annually, that said to do the exact opposite. We were not even allowed to give or accept innocuous gifts like tickets to a game without getting it approved by our legal department.
That's an entirely different class of bribe. There is no personal threat to you there. In some parts of the world, your livelihood, if not life, may be threatened.
"Call Legal if the police officer in Nicaragua is threatening to throw you in jail without arrest until you give him cash" is a reasonably sure way to put yourself at further risk/in grave peril.
If the gift is to secure business this is likely true especially if the business relates to some govt or official of another country. Very strict there - you can't pay a bribe to get business or as part of business development.
However, if you need to pay a "facilitation fee" to exit the country (called routine govt action) that is not about securing business or getting a competitive advantage such as a customs waiver, then paying the fee may be permitted (for a number of reasons).
What I think US folks don't realize is some dept's overseas basically pay their staff through these unofficial fees, they set some rates for service, but nothing goes through treasury and no enabling legislation exists. But they also don't get money from their treasury to operate (or its stolen by folks above them) so that's how they keep operating.
People forget that facilitation fees were the norm not long ago: in Britain in 18th century you'd have to pay the judge for judging you and the prison for keeping you. You can imagine that the size of your payment greatly influenced how you were treated.
In Russia prior to USSR, facilitation fees is how all officials earned money, that was the official policy. That's only 100 years ago that is was not even considered corruption / bribery. Obviously that disease is still festering in Russia and the country as a whole is paying a grave toll for it.
Lastly, do keep in mind that as a local you can probably tell is a payment can be declined withoit repercussions, but as a foreigner you don't really know.
That makes sense, and you’re right. I’ve never worked or lived anywhere that bribes or “facilitation fees” were the norm. The closest I’ve come is a public bus in Vietnam where the driver and fare collector guy made up their own rates contrary to the posted fares.
It isn't going to be taught unless you are going to be doing business in a country where it is the unavoidable norm with the people who are known fordoing it. Otherwise you will be trained to not pay bribes.
I have it on good authority that all apple employees are trained to not pay any kind of bribes. Didn't realize that training would need to be applied in the states tho
That's bad training. If they are stuck in a country because they won't pay the $20 exit fee because authorizing legislation was not properly adopted, then apple are idiots.
It will take one person dying because of this policy for apple to be sued to hell and back.
That's why organisations use proxy security and travel agents to pay those bribes. It's built into the price.
American Express GBT, BCD Travel, CWT, FCM Travel, they all offer it. It's usually expensed as "Consulting" or "Advisory", however never separated in invoiced line-items.
Every single large tech organisation has made lip-service commitments publicly to not accept bribes, but also operate in countries where it's the absolute norm. How is that handled? Through an intermediary.
> That's bad training. If they are stuck in a country because they won't pay the $20 exit fee because authorizing legislation was not properly adopted, then apple are idiots.
Oh so they are stuck somewhere during a business trip? In that case, they would contact their company for assistance.
Alternatively, it's just a job. The penalties tend to go as far as firing the employee. If it's a life and death situation that's an ok outcome. I mean, if we insist in discussing these convoluted scenarios...
