I suspect people cynically demanding that CEOs be put in jail haven’t really dug into the facts of this or other FCPA cases. Holding the CEO liable for employee misdeeds is like holding teachers responsible for teenagers getting into fights or having sex. It’s a strong moral position to take (holding teachers accountable), but it’s wholly impractical and unfair.<p>In a company with a million employees, it’s guaranteed that hundreds if not thousands are doing things that are illegal. That’s just statistics applied to human nature. When the company is multi-national the problem is worse. Conduct like bribery or tax evasion that is condemned in the US is socially accepted in many other countries. When some store manager in Mexico bribes an inspector, the CEO of Wal-Mart has absolutely no idea that it happened. You can probably go several layers down before you find someone who knew.<p>The touchstone of criminal law is a guilty mind. When someone’s conduct is mharmful, we hold them liable for monetary damages. But only where there is personal moral culpability do we impose criminal sanctions. It’s the difference between wrongful death and murder. Ordinary negligence, and criminal negligence. This is an easy, bright line rule, and shouldn’t be compromised for anything.
So, now its the US governments chance to hold out its hand.<p>These are so trivial for a company like Walmart, and no-one is being individually held responsible. So it just looks like an official bit of us gov bribery, just like the fee's to avoid the security line at the airport. Cloak it in a bit of legal mumble jumbo and the us government gets its payout too.<p>Frankly though too, these foreign anti-bribery laws seem so antiquated. Every year I have to sit through training for them as part of the corporate hand waving (we can't be responsible we trained our employees). Yet really it pales in comparison to the damage actually being done, and in the cases where the officials will actually take bribes just puts us based companies at a disadvantage to other foreign companies willing to pay the bribes. Especially in cases where the companies from other countries will waltz in with "infrastructure improvements", "cheap loans" whatever...
I'm sorry, It's an unpopular opinion to hold, but the overseas bribery thing is a ridiculous standard to hold. [These opinions are just mine, and while I have them as opinions I would never act on them as a representative of my company, not that I would ever have the chance, and I don't work for Walmart]<p>Over the course of human history, bribery has been the norm. I would dare to say that today, by population, it is the norm. It has obvious dirtiness in the US and Western Europe. And the US and Western Europe have tried to force this view on other nations, which have created laws that they don't pursue or prosecute.<p>But criminalizing actions performed in another country based on morality in the US feels equally dirty. I don't mind the US handing evidence over to another sovereign nation for them to deal with, but prosecuting a crime on another countries soil over something that may not be seen as a crime in that country just doesn't make sense.<p>I know, Walmart is "evil". It's southern US, and hits rural towns, takes advantage of US laws at scale (which would have been taken advantage of in small chunks that added up to the near total), etc.<p>But, Amazon which is worse on the Walmart issues (low wages, overworked employees, stressed vendors, killing jobs) and then adds on to it traditional "antitrust" problems of vertical integration, and somehow gets a pass in our community because they're a tech company and "we" shop there. Can we get past the rhetoric and move on to the actual arguments?
I live in Africa and pay bribes on a weekly and sometimes daily basis. It’s hard to do anything at all without bribes here, and I am certainly sympathetic of it.<p>People who don’t have experience with 3rd world countriss often think it’s a big deal bribing someone. But it’s not, it’s a simple fact of life. I don’t really see anything wrong with a company doing it either.<p>In fact, I kind of like paying bribes. Unlike in the US, I don’t really have to worry about doing anything illegal. I can have weed in the car, I can have out of date permits, I can really just do anything I please. I have money, so it’s all good.<p>Of course, it’s worse if you’re poor. But then again, in America being stopped by the police when you’re poor is probably worse.
I will preface this by saying I am not defending Wal-Mart. However, it is somewhat a cost of doing business in many countries. I have spoken with close friends from both Brazil, Mexico, and India, and it is very much part of how business is done there. I have also heard from numerous acquaintances that this is the case in China, including people who did business there. This does perhaps not justify Wal-Mart's behavior, but it provides some context and reminds us that companies (even those the size of Wal-Mart) have few options. Besides, promising to bring jobs to a certain area leads to more tax revenue, which in turn leads to fatter pockets for politicians. We delude ourselves to pretend we are perfect.<p>However, America has the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which does mean this could be more complicated. We recognize that someone else jumping off a bridge does not justify our doing so. And though we still have problems at home, we do try to police them. When a corruption scandal breaks, politicians usually are forced out of office; compared to many other places, this is good.
Question: What does the United States gain by disallowing US companies to bribe government officials outside the United States? From a purely logistical standpoint, it seems like it would make more sense for those other countries to police these activities, or for the US to give the information they have to those governments to fine the companies as they see fit in their own countries.<p>Why does the US fine US companies for illegal behavior outside the US? Is it just moral reasons? Or is there a diplomatic reason for it? Or a treaty that requires us to do so?
I try to be careful with what is defined as bribery.<p>It’s very easy to prance around on a high horse and cast out moral judgements when you’ve never had to open offices internationally.<p>It sounds like no doubt some pockets were unapologetically made fat. It also sounds like they didn’t do a very good job of hiding it. I wonder if that’s because their then line of thinking was “paying to pay” is simply normalized in business.<p>As I think about where the boundary is drawn for bribery, it’s interesting to see “offering cars and computers to governments” is framed as bribery, while somehow what local municipalities are demanding from giant tech co’s (ie Mt View / Google) is not.
You obviously can't jail a corporation as you would a person in this situation. However, a person would absolutely be subject to asset forfeiture and proceeds of crime law in such a situation - do the same here.<p>A paltry fine such as this is never going to prevent this behaviour. Determine as part of the investigation any revenue the company made from engaging in the behaviour and take it off them, in addition to the fine.
In a corrupt country, paying bribes to get licenses and permits is often necessary for the copmany and beneficial for the citizens. India was known for having a "License Raj", which has done far more to keep India poor than any foreign company.
Somehow I just don't see this as a scandal, bribery is common in those countries and it would be out of place to _not_ bribe officials to get permits if everyone else is.
Does the US government offer any support to US companies that are tempted to engage in bribery overseas (other than attempting to level the playing field, among US companies, by outlawing any of them doing it)?<p>That sounds potentially very delicate, for a variety of reasons, and interesting.
I don't see the problem. Overseas, in many third-world and developing countries, bribery is how business gets done. If you don't participate, you don't do business.
Strange - WalMart used to be hell on bribes, years ago. The WalMart Engineer that visited our site would put a quarter on the counter when taking coffee from the free machine - because it could mean his job to appear to take any freebies whatsoever from any vendor/supplier! How the mighty have fallen.
Top 7 comments, with the exception of the 4th, all defending Walmart. The levels of bootlicking on this site can be too much for me to read at times. If Walmart was a tech company I would have only assumed this was their doing but it's nice to know the community provides this service free of charge.
> <i>Walmart was able to negotiate a lower fine after President Trump, who had previously criticized the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, took office.</i><p>Can anyone explain a reason why someone who isn't a cad might not agree with the FCPA (ie. for reasons that aren't "money good, ethics bad")? This isn't a dig at Trump. I just don't understand the law well enough to know how angry I should be.
“Culture is the foundation of everything we do at Walmart. We define culture as our values in action..<p>Service to the customer<p>Respect for the individual<p>Strive for excellence<p>Act with integrity”<p>-Wal Mart’s horseshit values statement, the same as the value statement of every other corporation. Why does every company bother doing this again?