Hacker News Reader

Comment by t-writescode | Hacker News Reader

Honestly, this sounds like it's coming from someone that lives in a country where bribes aren't commonplace.

It's good that you and I both live in countries like that; but, in some countries, you report your bribes on taxes, they're so common.

From the other comments in this thread, it's suggesting that the CCW permit process in California is very bad and broken and these bribes have been an illegal method of actually getting CCW permits.

View on HN

I used to work for one of the oil giants. They had codified standards for bribery, a la: "While we do not approve of bribery, we recognize that in some places we do business, they are an unfortunate necessity. To that end, we have standardized our practices to keep everyone involved as safe as possible".

I hope there standard was to not do it, because it is a US crime for any US national, citizen or resident as employee, officer or agent of a US corporation to bribe or otherwise corrupt a foreign official.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Ac...

One common exception is the so called grease payments which you’ll need to get anything done in any reasonable time frame.

> 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.

My understanding is there is an exception for bribes needed to get an otherwise typical process complete. In other words, you’re entitled to some permit, but without a bribe you’d never get it or not get it in a reasonable period of time.

Such a payment is considered a grease payment (and not a bribe), which is lawful under FCPA.

I think you're assuming your parent is an American?

(Looks like they're Australian: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25194634)

A bit of both. I live in the US now, but grew up in Australia (and born in Scotland, so I have quite the passport collection at this point).

It is likewise illegal for Australian citizens, residents or corporations (with the same sort of "Facilitation Payment" carve-outs mentioned elsethread):

https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2020-09/factsheet-2-the-f...

It’s funny - I did give that some thought - and then concluded (VERY INCORRECTLY I ADD), well he worked for one of the BIG oil companies — more likely than not an American.

Upon giving it a little more thought it turns out that only 2 of the top 10 oil companies are American. So, yeah, my bad.

I have worked for a non-US company that was owned by a US company. I had to go through training and one of the courses was about bribery.

It was an absurd experience. The training material kept repeating that I absolutely could not bribe a non-US official. However, in my country ALL officials are non-US and bribery is also illegal so what were they trying to tell me with this "non-US" criterion?

The message I got from training course is that bribery is bad (I knew that), bribery is illegal (I knew that) but it's okay if I bribe a US official (really?).

I wouldn't call it paying a bribe so much as paying a ransom. It does not surprise me at all that this is happening given how much authority the Sherrif's have over CCW and how few they give out.

Show me the incentives and I will show you the outcome.

The ability to deny something is very powerful. Gives others great power over others.

I know a guy who works on oil tankers and he was doing a gig in Africa. As he told it, basically every port there has a deal where you have to smuggle oil or stuff for them and tricks to get through standard inspections etc., etc.

So a new captain comes on board and first port they get in he refuses to do this - they refuse to let them in the port - they were out at sea without resupply 20 days and running out of food... the company had to fly in a different captain to relieve this guy and he told me by day 2 weeks in they were already joking around how the captain could have an accident ...

> but, in some countries, you report your bribes on taxes, they're so common.

Can you give any examples of those countries? Countries with high amount of bribing tend to also be countries with large off-the-record economies, therefore I am skeptical of that proposition.

FYI in the US, you can claim tax deductibility on bribes paid in foreign countries iff they are not legally classified as bribes in the respective local laws.

>> but, in some countries, you report your bribes on taxes

> Can you give any examples of those countries?

Germany used to be like this, but it they changed the law many years ago. I don't know if there are any such countries remaining. The article below is from 1995, when bribes were still tax-deductible.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/1995-08-06/germany-w...

I know of examples from El Salvador, but couldn't find good info on their tax laws in Spanish. This report mentions that extortion rackets are so pervasive that larger companies hire full time negotiators to manage their bribes, and have it built into their business models. No matter how you codify it, or whether or not you really call them officially "tax deductible", they are in fact a real operating cost that an American business doesn't ever have to consider but a third world one does, and it drives up cost for the end consumer.

Extortion is mainly demanded from businesses, but local residents may also have to pay “taxes” or renta to access their homes. No business sector is spared, and goods and professional services may be demanded instead of, or in addition to money. Large businesses and transport operators have dedicated employees to negotiate extortion fees, which are built into >their financial models. Implicit risk starts as soon as someone is targeted to pay, and it rises if they are unable to pay or the renta charged increases. Those who refuse to pay are killed.

https://www.internal-displacement.org/sites/default/files/in...

I remember reading in the calguns forums a few years back that sheriffs had de-facto outlawed concealed carry in CA with this extortionate program.

By the way Apples head of security isn’t the only one. Nanci Pelosi has had a CCW for a long time while simultaneously fighting to suppress gun ownership in her own city and state.

That's nothing new. Senator Dianne Feinstein got a permit to carry a concealed handgun in San Francisco. There has always been one set of rules for the powerful and another set for the rest of us.

One rule for me, another for thee...

Er, no. Different laws at different times. If CC were made illegal, it would be illegal for her too. Or is she actually advocating for different laws for different people?

Yes but you shouldn’t need a permit to get one, in the spirit of the 2nd amendment. Having permits just makes 2 classes of people, those with connections to the sheriff and regular Joes.

What do you do when you want it to be legal for some people and illegal for other people? Make an opaque approval process and don’t approve very many people. My understanding based on some details I heard a few years ago (so I am no expert) is that this is exactly what happened.

She and her class are above the laws.

She had one because the anarcho hippie terrorist groups of SF targeted her and shot up her home several times. When the group was arrested/disbanded, she let her permit lapse.

While I agree it sucks that some rich and powerful people seem to live by a different set of rules, it's not like she had a permit just for kicks.

But that’s the whole point of a CCW permit. If you’re at risk you should be allowed to have one, and yet she works to make that impossible for all but the powerful and connected. It’s fine that she has one but it’s not fine that she doesn’t let regular Californians go through the same application process without money or connections.

My point was to show that she had a legitimate need, then let the permit lapse when she no longer had a need. She didn't have one for an abuse of power.

I wasn't debating the merits of the CA shall issue policy.

In other words, don't pick a fight where there isn't one.

> My point was to show that she had a legitimate need

No one was arguing otherwise. The comments you were replying to were clearly about the hypocrisy of anti-gun politicians.

> In other words, don't pick a fight where there isn't one.

Indeed.

Don't senators get (armed) govt security protection anyway when they are threatened?

She was mayor of San Francisco at the time.

However, a person living in a dangerous neighborhood has just as much right to protection as an elected official. And the 2nd Amendment doesn’t have a qualifier “if you can prove you need it.”

In the spirit of the 2nd amendment, you shouldn’t need a permit. Also happens to close one avenue for corruption.

My childhood home was burgled several times and death threats written on it. I was assaulted several times.

But I’m not rich and powerful, so.

I recall Sherif telling my dad if he shot someone, to make sure the body was in the house pointing toward the inside. That way he wouldn’t be arrested.

So we were under constant assault, and if we tried to defend ourselves we had to make sure everything was “perfect” so as not to get arrested.

Complete insanity.

Moved away as fast as possible.

To be fair, there's a difference between being a victim of a crime that could happen to anybody, and being a target and likely future victim.

No. I think that’s part of the problem.

I’m not allowed to defend myself. At least not with a big check list to ensure I don’t goto jail.

I recall advise like keep a bat and glove in car at all times. Glove is the “reason” you have something to defend yourself with.

Nonsense games to protect yourself because some Pampered people don’t think you should be allowed to.

What gets me as a Brit is when wealthy Hollywood celebrities campaigning for gun control point to our country's gun laws as an example and then insist that of course their security guards should be allowed to carry guns. (Private sector armed security is basically illegal here.) Of course, what really really gets me is when they talk about our total ban on guns while insisting that their security guards don't count because they have handguns and not big scary rifles, because the total UK ban they're likely thinking of is on handgun ownership specifically.

IDK why you're getting downvoted.. I looked into this when I moved to SF and was astonished that it was basically impossible to get a CCW. Coming from the Detroit area this was a MAJOR shock to me.

I'm surprised Pelosi thinks she even needs one. Rules for you and not for me.

A CEO from Japan came over to America to give a speech at his new factory. His English wasn’t great, so he spoke, and the translator spoke to everyone.

Well at one point he went on about thanking local government officials, and that he would be sure to give them gifts for approving the project.

The translator wisely left that part out.

Confused, the CEO later asked why, then was shocked to learn that bribery is a bad thing in America.

Google Fu is weak, so haven’t been able to find the original source. (May have been a Japanese language book)

> bribery is a bad thing in America

Well. At least openly talking about it.

Pretending it doesn't work in Americaa is ostrich syndrome. Just the first google result to prove my point. https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2020-10-22/tr...

That doesn't scream "real" to me. Bribery is illegal in Japan. Thats why there is informal "gift giving"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com