Hacker News Reader

Comment by crx07 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

Every Fortune 100 company I've worked for has annual training that stresses the companies no-bribes no matter the reason policy.

Then we get pulled over in Mexico with a VP with us and it's a totally different reality on the ground.

So there's a difference between paying off the cop for a speeding ticket, and bribing the Minister of Resources for a contract.

Most companies want you to pay the cop to not take you to jail on fake charges.

The don't want you to pay the M. Resources (or at least not officially).

International Conglomerates keep 'Sunshine Funds' - i.e. money off the regular books in overseas accounts for this activity.

It's part of doing business in 1/2 the countries around the world, literally impossible to do business without it.

The company doesn’t want you to not pay bribes — they just want to be able to say that they told you not to if you get caught.

> 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.

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.

[0] https://www.ganintegrity.com/compliance-glossary/facilitatio...

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.

Absolutely. This is a good point.

Courtside tickets to an NBA game? Not okay.

"Your vehicle does not have the permits. You need to come with me" at gunpoint in sub-Saharan Africa? That's a matter of life and death, potentially.

This thread reminds me of John McAfee's bribery guide http://www.whoismcafee.com/the-travel-guide/

That was an interesting and mind-numbingingly depressing read at the same time

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.

So lets dial back the absolutes, huh?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com