Microsoft is using illegal bribes in the Middle East and Africa
lioness.co
lioness.co
The attempt to deploy western culture globally has failed miserably, generating jobs who exist merley to errect a veneer of compliance.
Behind the thin layer of paint, the old culture and world continus happily on unphased by the hysterics. And it was always painfully obvious for those in the know.
For example there was a law in many arab countries, that you could not do buisness with israel and do buisness with them. Yet, when you opened company location maps, there they were, side by side, right next to the company "morals & mission statements" tab. The obvious answer, bribes in broad daylight.
Now, as the western exported "cultural revolution" winds down in obvious failure, all that veneer fades away and the ugly old world reappears as if it was never gone.
Very soon, the workers with confiscated passports might as well be called slaves again. Its a sad, depressing state of affairs, but then it was for the non deluded befor this point in time too.
Microsoft using bribes in Africa, the Middle East or parts of Asia isn't a Microsoft problem, it a problem that those specific countries need to deal with. Microsoft would most likely have made their sales anyway, if bribes hadn't been a thing, it would just be slightly cheaper to do so, so I don't think management at Microsoft cares one way or the other.
Just so y'all know, people have been convicted for international bribery in the US using "arms-length" consultants. This has been called out in every ethics training I've had to take since like 2004.
We even had a visiting member of the EU parliament and the CEO directly asked about this scenario. The PM argued that it wasn't ideal, but that it was part of doing business with, in this case, China. Technically, yeah you know, legally, just don't have the word bribe in the contract with the consultants.
I guess people just don't know that that it's just as illegal, or feel it's less objectionable than paying bribes directly. Or they speculate that it's harder to prove.
It also create an uneven playing field. Western countries can't do business in large part of the world, while companies from those same countries are free to sell anywhere.
If you did, sanctioned countries wouldn't be a thing.
'I want to make money' isn't some kind of first, last, or sole moral consideration, overriding all others.
It's obvious though that the problem is getting caught. If bribery is endemic, then you pay both the corporate bribe costs and the "not-getting-caught" bribe costs
It's a shitty argument, I'll grant you that, but it's not a problem that Microsoft can fix. They should take the moral high ground, but the money was always going to be siphoned of.
Saying it is fine when Americans bribe in foreign countries is saying it is fine if Americans are corrupt.
I'd argue that it's a WTO problem, let's just cut of all ties to countries where bribing in any form is acceptable, leaving us with what? The Nordic countries and New Zealand?
I'm not arguing that it's not an issue, but what would you have them do exactly? The bribing isn't going to disappear because Microsoft says no. Africa will just be running on Red Star OS and Tecent Cloud.
Just like the US is using their clout to force people around the world to eg force French companies not to do business with Iran.
> I'd argue that it's a WTO problem, let's just cut of all ties to countries where bribing in any form is acceptable, leaving us with what?
As a compromise, you could target countries in which bribing is de jure _legal_, and worry about de facto later.
That's already the case. It's already illegal for an American company to pay bribes abroad, even if it's "legal" there. The problem is that like many other people said - you just hire a local "consulting" business that handles that for you and your hands are clean.
Just make that illegal, too? And make sure that ignorance is not an excuse before the law. (Something like gross negligence, if you don't check on your subcontractors well enough.)
Now, put a lot of air in that thought-baloon and you will see how basically every for-profit will end up doing immoral things.
The worst morale failures in history have been perpetrated by governments.
That's why people need to start thinking of these issues globally, not in terms of what "their country" can do
"Facilitating payments" aka "grease payments" are explicitly allowed in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
This article is about actual, real bribery, which is illegal under the FCPA.
> You need a rule of law, to tame corruption and no non-democracy has that.
As far as I can tell, that implies the only combination that's impossible is non-democracy and non-corruption. Ie all non-democracies are corrupt, but some democracies might also be corrupt.
Btw, I don't think that's even true: British ruled Hong Kong had rule of law, but no democracy.
However statistically, there seems to be at least a weak correlation (negative) between corruption and democracy.
As long as contracts are being upheld, and court decisions are speedy and predictable, and public officials don't enrich themselves, that counts as low / no corruption, doesn't it?
Democracy might help with that ideal, but it's by no means strictly necessary.
As far as I can tell, an absolute monarchy that is run for the benefit of the ruler can still have rule of law and low corruption.
As an alternate history example, take Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore, but make him king and increase his salary to 1 billion SGD per year (instead of 1 million SGD per year). Change nothing else.
They would still be one of the least corrupt countries on earth, and have a judiciary that enforces the rule of law.
> Rule of law in a non-democratic polity inherently benefits its rulers more than other citizens.
That can and does happen in democracies, too.
Corruption, and even corrupt laws, exist in democracies too, but in a non-democracy all laws are inherently corrupt. Non-democracies have no legitimate basis for even having laws.
"Pareto believed that societies are ruled by an elite class, which he called the "circulation of elites." In his view, these elites are able to gain and maintain power by using their wealth, intelligence, and social connections to influence political and economic institutions. Pareto saw democracy as a way to redistribute power and wealth from the elite to the masses, but he was skeptical that this could ever be achieved in practice. He argued that even in democracies, power tends to be concentrated in the hands of a small group of people who are able to control the political process and manipulate public opinion."
I am not sure what the argument really is against that. That sounds like the reality we live in.
Even in old and established democracies, there's usually a large gap between what is said of the democracy, and what the democracy actually is and does.
For instance:
I've always thought it was really funny when westerners adopted the belief that Benazir Bhutto was some enlightened champion of democracy and progress while remaining blissfully ignorant of the historical position of vast wealth and power her family occupies in Sindh.
Were a visit to the doctor might kill you, because they all got their diploma because they know the same family and never spent a day awake and sober in university. And the health minister is from that family. And the whole anti-corruption self-repair mechanism is dysfunct, cause its married to that familys cousin.
Don't you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_or_gra...
Because thats what lobbying is.
So i dobt understand what people mean when they say “lobbying is legal bribery”.
Please explain
I'm not siding with Microsoft here or any other business, just stating that this is how things are. I mean, of course, there could be many other ways, but this carries the least risk for the business.
I've been in contract negotiations where the purchase of industrial equipment is contingent upon prostitutes and trips to DisneyWorld.
Of course we don't want to pay for these things, but if you don't, they just give the contract to someone who will.
Now, having said that, the conditions are appalling and the employers do many unscrupulous and illegal things. But it is a voluntary arrangement unlike slavery.
On arrival, the worker realizes that everything they have been told is a lie. Their passport is confiscated and they are told that, if they try to run away to their embassy etc, goons will go to their family to extort the money owed for the loans by any means necessary, including torture and death.
Would you still call this a "voluntary arrangement"?
Perhaps not for the first guy to ever fall for this. But existing workers are still communicating with the folks back home, so prospective new workers now what to expect and what to believe and not to believe.
I agree that they aren't treated well; but we can't ignore that the situation back home is often even worse.
Contrary to common belief, corruption does not have much to do with democracy. There are many non-democratic countries without corruption, and many democratic countries with corruption (and the inverse too for both).
The relation is that, currently, a high standard of living leads both to less corruption and to more democracy.
Old British-ruled Hong Kong arguably had rule of law and no democracy.
Where is the incentive for honesty or long term thinking for politicians or political candidates?
The politician's primary concern is to win the next election. Promises of any sort can be fielded to win this battle. Ideally his promises should motivate voters to support his campaign. After the election, excuses can be made. The opposition offers an easy scapegoat for not delivering upon previous promises.
While in office, the politician has every incentive to milk his position for all it is worth. He doesn't personally have a stake in the country's budget. The politician is driven to drive funds towards his donors. His only time preference is to make it happen before his term expires. Long term results of policies or contracts are besides the point.
After spending considerable time in 3rd world countries, my takeaway is that corruption in the developed world is simply more expensive. Yes, you can legally lobby for your company to receive gov. contracts. The difference is that you need to pay expensive lawyers to execute the process. You can't just simply throw a few hundred dollars around or ask your brother-in-law.
There's a right way to lobby in the west and a wrong way, which is tabooed as corruption. The end result is much the same. The difference is often partisan perception.
It gets worse as they are put on a performance improvement plan (PIP), even though they have 18 years of experience and presumably had no significant performance issues up until this point.
If the information about corruption within the post is true, Microsoft undoubtedly deserve to pay a significant fine, but unfortunately:
> What is a shock: This time around, the SEC and DOJ
> have both declined to investigate Microsoft over
> the same types of bribes in the Middle East and
> Africa. They acknowledged my evidence (which I
> submitted three times) yet did not take up the
> case, claiming that the current pandemic has
> prevented them from gathering more evidence from
> abroad—even though I have already provided
> documentation that I believe shows Microsoft is in
> breach of the 2019 agreement and is still
> participating in corrupt business practices in
> direct violation of U.S. law.
If you want to do anything in those regions, bribes should be part of your budget, all the way down.
Even the workers that need to travel to those places should have a budget for those bribes, as in some places even the police will try to get you in trouble if you don't give them money, or in some African countries, even food is accepted.
I think you mean 5-10 countries in Western, Northern Europe right? Most of Europe is rife with corruption on every level and always has been.
> many employees younger than me, in lower positions, were driving luxury cars and purchasing homes
and it took until this event, for him to start connecting the dots:
> the partner in the deal [...] had been terminated four months earlier for poor performance on the sales team, and corporate policy prohibits former employees from working as partners
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_licensing_corruption...
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/hungary-subsidiary-microsoft-...
Software licensing bribery and kickbacks are peanuts and crumbs on the floor by comparison.
A great deal of it is justified under the concept that because they're definitely not on good terms with the mullahs in Qom, anyone opposed to the Iranian ayatollahs as a regional power must be our friend, right?
You dont need to go beyond yesterday for history. The foreign aid budget for example is litteral bribery with a less icky name.
One obvious problem I have seen is the procurement laws and procedures. Especially in government and public companies. For example, you need to go through a tender process to procure basic stuff like licenses for software. So a separate company (not Microsoft) submits a tender to "supply" another company for licenses to use Microsoft products.
This opens up a clear avenue for corruption. And it is heavily exploited. These companies basically submit tenders for the these licenses at exorbitantly inflated prices while doing absolutely nothing. There is nothing preventing these public companies and government agencies for purchasing directly from Microsoft except for the procurement rules and procedures.
So we end up in a situation where folks that are awarded these tenders end up pocketing large amounts for "supplying Microsoft software". Local Microsoft employees are obviously colluding with them.
Reviewing these procurement rules and laws may have some impact in reducing these obvious form of corruption.
When I worked as a bicycle courier in DC I recall picking up from Microsoft, 1401 I st. NW. No software was developed at this office. It was just highly paid lawyers and lobbyists. Consider how productive that is in real terms, and remember those costs are passed onto you as a consumer.
The delivery was 9 Titleist golf balls in a box, each ball inside of an individual box. There was also a greeting card. The entire delivery was packaged inside of a bubble wrapped envelope. The congressperson wasn't interested in sending an aide outside to collect the package even after the contents were explained.
The check inside of the greeting card for 10,000 USD was not enticing enough for them to come outside.
In these scenarios, packages were sent to the "security trailer", which was no longer a trailer, but a concrete block structure nearby on Capitol Hill.
Inside of the trailer, I was instructed to individually double bag each golf ball, with a barcode on the inner bag. A security person or Capitol Hill policeman pedantically ordered each step of the process from a drive-thru quality intercom system.
For his safety, he stayed behind the bulletproof glass with a positive air pressure differential. He still had to sign my manifest to accept the delivery. It was like standing in front of a laboratory flow hood as I passed my clipboard into the robotic drawer.
After bagging, I was instructed to individually x-ray each item. Next, the entire package was double bagged again with yet another barcode. Finally, I handed off the package through the airlock. About 15 minutes total. Could have been longer, but he already had my data entered into the computer system. I was a regular visitor.
The entire procedure is absurd. The distinction of illegal bribes in the title speaks to this. Say what you will about the necessity of the state, but whether legal or illegally practiced, government gatekeepers are a net drain on the economy. If you cannot appreciate the productivity losses in abstract terms, consider how inefficient the processes are to simply deliver a check for ten-thousand dollars to a congressperson.
There's an special kind of absurdity when delivering the legal bribe itself is inefficient and the security theater is nonsensical.
Hence why they are worthless beyond getting a checkmark on the yearly corporate trainings.
The article provides two internals audit reports, which are PDFs with blacked out names:
> Exceed IT Services [0]
> Diyar United Company [1]
Yes, this is just the black bars on top the info.
Not only author explicitly confirmed receiving teh internal MS documents but he didn't do a proper cleanup of the documents he provides to whole world.
This guy, along with his accomplice in MS, is in deep, deep trouble if anyone bothers to come for them.
[0] https://58a44b37-ba55-451b-989d-b8bc5339d45f.usrfiles.com/ug...
[1] https://58a44b37-ba55-451b-989d-b8bc5339d45f.usrfiles.com/ug...
yes, "legal bribes" go by many names depending on the target, amount and place.
tips, lobbying, political donations, promises, non-political donations/gifts to a "friend", funding, an implicit promise to land a comfy job after gov, etc ...
the difference between the west and other places is that in the west when you try to screw over other people, you design legal frameworks and loopholes that make said bribes legal and rightful and other shenanigans that diffuse the trail while places like the middle east and elsewhere it's more straight forward and has less abstraction layers, they look you in the eye smile and let you know that their screwing you.
the western model is better because you don't have to deal with the emotional reaction that comes from the humiliation and injustice face to face, and if you're not observing enough you might not even notice it if you want.
you can take a lot bribes and translate them into more acceptable/familiar language:
- bribing a waiter to not mess with your food: customer service tip.
- bribing a local government worker to give you a document that's rightfully your and skip your a lot of BS round-trips across many desks: an express lane service a la TSA preCheck/ Airlines Priority queues that helps people vote with their wallet about the urgency of the getting that document.
- having a bribe someone to land some big contract: an auction mechanism where bidders display the seriousness of their commitment to the project with their wallets.
- bribing a government official to not enforce a rule or interpret it in specific ways or create new regulation that just happen to be in your favor: lobbying
the list can go on.
Are there also legal bribes?
Of course, the friend in question will then get endorsed for a lucrative position, a cushy consultancy job or a non-executive board membership.
Having seen this in action (UK, Tory government) ... you are taking too many steps and too much complication. You donate publicly, on the register, to the party, candidates, (leadership candidates) etc. They give you things you ask for. The entire "scheme" is far more transparent than you think. It is also much cheaper than you think.
The expensive path is to literally hire a sitting member of parliament to your company and then you also get things you ask for.
The system works(/worked) extremely well because the people involved had some class and would only ask and take within reason. If you know, you know.
* A friend asks me to borrow $400K. He is a good friend, and I am happy to help him out
* A few months later, he decides to donate $200K to a political party that happens to be in power at the time
* The government makes certain decisions that appear to be in my favour. I discussed that certain changes would be helpful but never asked for them directly.
As another poster highlighted, you don't even need to use a friend in the UK, you can donate directly. The price of a seat in the House of Lords is £400,000 ($500K), but you can get other political favours much cheaper.
The price to buy a seat from Boris was nearly an order of magnitude cheaper - but he also sold a lot of seats that he can not fulfill.
Suggesting ideas to political parties is also not illegal.
It is only illegal if the money is donated for the sole purpose of influencing a particular decision.
That's not legal then. There's just a lack of evidence to bring a successful prosecution.
Anti-bribery laws authorise the use of bribes under narrow circumstances:
Particularly if the bribe seems to be necessary for safety of life (e.g. although you can clearly see the hospital has empty beds and equipment, the nursing staff assure you that your employee can't be helped and must just die here in the waiting room, sure enough once they have been bribed suitably the employee is given a bed and treatment begins). The bribe must be properly reported, both as a business expense and specifically as a bribe paid.
It is also certainly true that countries with global anti-bribery laws (including the US and UK) definitely don't actually enforce those laws when it comes to arms sales or other government authorised activity that frequently involves corrupt foreign governments. But that's just an ordinary example of "Do as I say, not as I do".
>> Are there also legal bribes?
Yes, lobbying. Legal bribery.
one more: https://www.reuters.com/article/swiss-bribes-idUSL8N2HX5BV
Next time, they're going to be more careful and timely handling your package, and you'll keep asking if they want a drink. It's unfair, because you will get special treatment compared to those who don't, but we're all human and everyone's happier. This is legal bribery.
UK can ask high fees for various reason, maybe to cover costs, or just for political reasons to get less people applying for visa.
- You want people to know that you tip. Then they think better of you: a generous and thankful person.
- You want people to not know that you pay bribes.
- If you don't tip, you might look like a rude and selfish person.
- If you don't bribe, you'll look like a more trustworthy high integrity person
(well, unless seen through the eyes of those who like bribes)
- You pay bribes before. Tips after. (Typically.)
I think tips and bribes are two different animals.
"tips" in the US are culturally accepted, although when I tried to tip the guy giving me a speeding ticket he was not happy.
"bribes" in India are culturally accepted
Neither are accepted in China
Since the agent receiving money for UK visa works for the UK, them doing what UK requires is not a bribe - perhaps you might argue that it's extortion or something else, but not a bribe, because there is no breach of duty.
If bribes weren’t worth paying, they wouldn’t be a thing.
So it what exactly was the difference against the grocery store? You know they don't actually make the milk in the store, right?
/thread.
> A former colleague based in Saudi Arabia who had become upset by what he saw taking place at Microsoft began forwarding me emails and documentation—and I learned that the corruption went much deeper than I had suspected.
Great, the guy just confessed receiving the internal documents from a company sent by an accomplice.
> This decision maker on the customer side would send an email to Microsoft requesting a discount, which would be granted, but the end customer would pay the full fee anyway. The amount of the discount would then be distributed among the parties in cahoots: the Microsoft employee(s) involved in the scheme, the partner, and the decision maker at the purchasing entity—often a government official.
Yep, the most straightforward and easy way to get some additional money.
> In a 2015 meeting with members of the Nigerian Parliament, the president of the Senate complained to me that the government had paid $5.5 million for Microsoft licenses for hardware they did not possess. This should never have happened, because Microsoft’s standard practice was to meet with the National Assembly’s IT department and financial controller to check the number of computers needing licenses before submitting any proposal.
This is not MS' problem, it's the problem of some corrupt paper-pusher who managed to convince all parties what there was a need to spend $5.5M.
> Likewise, auditors discovered that Qatar’s Ministry of Education was paying $9.5 million annually over seven years for Microsoft Office and Windows licenses they weren’t using—as they didn’t even have any PCs or laptop computers
Again, this is not MS' problem.
To sum up: the guy lived in the bubble for 20 years and suddenly he understood.
> is to laugh at the reporter
Sorry, but while I didn't laugh at the reporter I can't believe someone worked for 15 years in ME/A and didn't notice the corruption and bribes.
> do business with you
Thanks, I dont' want to do business with someone who didn't understand the comment yet responds with "Do better".
And because you need a clarification: no, I don't defend the corruption described in TFA, I just merely point out what the problem lies not in MS itself but in the modus operandi of many, many people with access to government funds.
You're a saint, and I mean that sincerely.
Anyone more down to earth would be ecstatic to conduct business with a self-professed naive individual, because the art of business is ripping someone off without pissing them off.
Fraud.
> In the government had paid $5.5 million for Microsoft licenses for hardware they did not possess
Microsoft being paid for something doesnt sound like Microsoft bribing someone.
> Qatar’s Ministry of Education was paying $9.5 million annually over seven years for Microsoft Office
Microsoft being paid for something doesnt sound like Microsoft bribing someone.
I too have a Microsoft 365 subscription that keeps autorenewing that I never use.
If the money passed through a 3rd-party which took the cut then it's not even a fraud, because it's up to the purchasing entity to use [or not] the discount. Like sure, it's an obvious collusion but from the point of law there is nothing wrong here.
> I too have a Microsoft 365 subscription that keeps autorenewing that I never use.
And this is the gist of most of OP woes.
You would be shocked, but it is very similar in EU countries too.