The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) is a federal law, enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice, which prohibits payments, gifts, or even offers of “anything of value” to a “foreign official” for the purpose of influencing the official or otherwise “securing any improper advantage” in obtaining, retaining or directing business.
The idea of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) is to make it illegal for companies and their supervisors to influence foreign officials with any personal payments or rewards. The FCPA applies to any person who has a certain degree of connection to the United States and engages in foreign corrupt practices. The Act also applies to any act by U.S. businesses, foreign corporations trading securities in the U.S., American nationals, citizens, and residents acting in furtherance of a foreign corrupt practice whether or not they are physically present in the U.S. This is considered the nationality principle of the act. Any individuals that are involved in those activities may face prison time.
This act was passed to make it unlawful for certain classes of persons and entities to make payments to foreign government officials to assist in obtaining or retaining business. In the case of foreign natural and legal persons, the Act covers their deeds if they are in the U.S. at the time of the corrupt conduct. This is considered the protective principle of the act. Further, the Act governs not only payments to foreign officials, candidates, and parties, but any other recipient if part of the bribe is ultimately attributable to a foreign official, candidate, or party. These payments are not restricted to monetary forms and may include anything of value. This is considered the territoriality principle of the act.
In simple words, The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), enacted in 1977, generally prohibits the payment of bribes to foreign officials to assist in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA can apply to prohibited conduct anywhere in the world and extends to publicly traded companies and their officers, directors, employees, stockholders, and agents. Agents can include third party agents, consultants, distributors, joint-venture partners, and others.
The Act concerns the intent of the bribery rather than the amount, there is no requirement of materiality. Offering anything of value as a bribe, whether cash or non-cash items, is prohibited.
The FCPA also requires companies whose securities are listed in the U.S. to meet its accounting provisions. These accounting provisions operate in tandem with the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA, and require respective corporations to make and keep books and records that accurately and fairly reflect the transactions of the corporation and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls. An increasing number of corporations are taking additional steps to protect their reputation and reduce their exposure by employing the services of due diligence companies tasked with vetting third party intermediaries and identifying easily overlooked government officials embedded in otherwise privately held foreign firms. This strategy is one element of an effective FCPA Compliance Program, as it shows a sincere attempt to avoid business situations where high risk (prior history or proximity to unethical behavior) individuals are concerned.
What is a Corrupt Purpose
One is acting with a corrupt purpose if he/she offers, promises, or provides something of value to a foreign official — either directly or through a third party — to improperly influence the foreign official in order to obtain, retain, or direct business or to secure any improper business advantage.
Intent of Payments Covered under the Act
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. The exception focuses on the purpose of the payment rather than on its value. Payments to foreign officials may be legal under the FCPA if the payments are permitted under the written laws of the host country. Certain payments or reimbursements relating to product promotion may also be permitted under the FCPA.
Generally, there are three situations in which payments to foreign officials would not result in liability
under the FCPA. One approach is to show that the challenged conduct falls within the so-called “routine
governmental action” exception to the FCPA. The other two situations involve invoking what are known as “affirmative defenses.” An affirmative defense generally is an assertion of facts and arguments that, if true, will defeat the prosecution’s claim, even if all the allegations made by the prosecution are true. There are two affirmative defenses under the FCPA. The exception and the two affirmative defenses are as follows:
Exception: Routine Governmental Action
The FCPA does not apply to any “facilitating or expediting payment,” the purpose of which is to expedite or secure the performance of a “routine governmental action.” Routine governmental action encompasses those actions which ordinarily and commonly are performed by a foreign official in:
1. Obtaining permits, licenses, or other official documents to qualify a person to do business in a foreign country.
2. Processing governmental papers, such as visas and work orders.
3. Providing police protection, mail pick-up and delivery, or scheduling inspections associated with contract performance or inspections related to transit of goods across country.
4. Providing telephone service, power and water supply, loading and unloading cargo, or protecting perishable products or commodities from deterioration; or
5. Actions of a similar nature.
Routine governmental action does not include, among other actions, any decision by a foreign official whether, or on what terms, to award new business to or to continue business with a company, or any action taken by a foreign official involved in the decision-making process to encourage a decision to award new business to, or continue business with, a company.
Two Affirmative Defenses:
There are two circumstances under which a payment, gift, offer, or promise of anything of value to a foreign official may qualify as an “affirmative defense” under the FCPA:
1. The payment, gift, offer, or promise of anything of value is lawful under the written laws and regulations of the foreign official’s, political party’s, party official’s, or candidate’s country; or
2. The payment, gift, offer, or promise of anything of value is a reasonable and bona fide expenditure, such as travel and lodging expenses, directly related to the promotion, demonstration, or explanation of products or services, or the execution or performance of a contract with a foreign government or agency thereof.
This means that, if you are accused of bribing a foreign official, you would have an affirmative defense if you could show that the payment, gift, offer, or promise of anything of value to the foreign official was lawful under the written laws and regulations of that foreign official’s country, or was related to a reasonable and bona fide expenditure as described above.
In relying on the local law of the foreign country as an affirmative defense for a payment, gift, offer, or promise of anything of value to a foreign official, the law or regulation being relied upon, at the time of the conduct, must be “written.” Local practice, custom, or other unwritten policies do not qualify as an affirmative defense.
In addition, recent FCPA enforcement actions have involved travel, lodging, and entertainment provided to foreign officials. As with the exception for facilitation payments, issuers that incur these types of expenses on behalf of foreign government officials must have the appropriate internal controls and compliance procedures in place to provide that these expenses satisfy the “reasonable” and “bona fide” criteria of this affirmative defense and are properly approved and documented in the issuer’s books and records.
Sanctions and Penalties
The sanctions for FCPA violations can be significant. Companies that have committed either civil or criminal FCPA violations may have to pay back profits obtained by making improper payments through disgorgement or restitution plus prejudgment interest, pay substantial criminal fines or civil penalties, and/or be subject to oversight by an independent compliance monitor, and for criminal violations they may also be subject to suspension and debarment actions limiting business opportunities with the U.S. government.
For individuals, conviction of a criminal FCPA violation may result in imprisonment and significant fines. The FCPA prohibits companies from paying fines incurred by individuals, either directly or indirectly. Individuals also are subject to significant civil penalties and disgorgement plus prejudgment interest.
A case, where ultimately an individual was booked under FCPA regulations is produced below for better understanding:
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. (“LBG”) filed a complaint in New Jersey state court on June 10, 2016 against a former Senior Vice President of the company, Richard Hirsch, alleging that Hirsch violated his fiduciary duties to the company by authorizing improper payments in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) in Vietnam and Indonesia from 1999-2004. At the time of the payments, Hirsch was the senior LBG employee in Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam. The payments were the subject of an FCPA investigation by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and resulted in, among other things, a July 2015 settlement in which LBG paid a $17.1 million monetary penalty and agreed to retain a compliance monitor for three years. LBG also was subject to a period of debarment by the World Bank.
LBG’s complaint alleges that Hirsch’s conduct violated both the FCPA and company policies. LBG seeks to recover the financial penalty paid by the company, the fees incurred in connection with investigating the improper payments and resolving the matter with the DOJ, damages relating to alleged harm to LBG’s reputation and business relationships, and payments that were advanced to Hirsch to cover his legal fees and expenses in connection with the DOJ investigation. According to the complaint, LBG terminated Hirsch’s employment in 2011, after he had declined to cooperate with the company’s internal investigation. Hirsch pleaded guilty to FCPA violations in July 2015, and is expected to be sentenced next month.
Recent pronouncements and policy initiatives by the DOJ emphasizing its efforts to hold individuals accountable for corporate misdeeds, including under the FCPA, have provided sobering reminders to business executives of the need for rigorous compliance and the consequences of missteps. Prior Alerts have addressed the implications of these policies and the prospects that individuals and employers could face not only potential claims or prosecution by governmental authorities, but also follow-on civil litigation, including shareholder class actions and derivative actions. The LBG complaint highlights yet another avenue of potential exposure for individuals involved in improper business activities. Given the high costs of many FCPA-related investigations and the large fines and potential collateral consequences imposed in many FCPA investigations, claims such as LBG’s could expose business executives to substantial liability.
The FCPA has two related accounting requirements:
1. Books and records
2. Internal controls
The “books and records” provisions require a company to make and keep books, records, and accounts, which, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company.
The “internal controls” provisions require a company to devise and maintain a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that:
1. Transactions are executed in accordance with management’s authorization.
2. Transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements and to maintain accountability for assets.
3. Access to assets is limited to management’s authorization.
4. The recorded accountability for assets is compared with the existing assets at reasonable intervals and appropriate action is taken with respect to any differences.
Historical instances of non-compliance of FCPA
1. In 2008, Siemens AG paid a $450 million fine for violating the FCPA. This is one of the largest penalties ever collected by the DOJ (Department of Justice) for an FCPA case. The Siemens bribery scandal in Greece, is a corruption and bribery scandal in Greece over deals between Siemens AG and Greek government officials during the 2004 Summer Olympic Games in Athens, Greece regarding security systems and purchases by OTE (OTE is a Greek telecommunication provider) in the 1990s.
2. In 2012, Japanese firm Marubeni Corporation paid a criminal penalty of US$54.6 million for FCPA violations when acting as an agent of the TKSJ joint venture, which comprised Technip, Snamprogetti Netherlands B.V., Kellogg Brown & Root Inc., and JGC Corporation. Between 1995 and 2004, the joint venture won four contracts in Nigeria worth more than US$6 billion, as a direct result of having paid US$51 million to Marubeni to be used to bribe Nigerian government officials.
3. In 2012 Smith & Nephew paid US$22.2 million to the DOJ and SEC, and Bizjet International Sales and Support Inc. paid US$11.8 million to the DOJ for bribery of foreign government officials. Both companies entered into a deferred prosecution agreement.
4. In March 2012, Biomet Inc. paid a criminal fine of US$17.3 million to resolve charges of FCPA violations and US$5.5 million in disgorgement of profits and pre-judgment interest to the SEC.
5. In January 2014, ALCOA paid $175 million in disgorgement of revenues and a fine of $209 million to settle charges that its Australian bauxite mining subsidiary retained an agent that made bribes to government officials in Bahrain and to officers of Aluminum Bahrain B.S.C. to secure long-term contracts to supply the company with bauxite ore.
6. In March 2014, Marubeni Corporation agreed with the DOJ to pay a US$88 million fine after pleading guilty to taking part in a scheme to pay bribes to high ranking Indonesian officials in order to secure a lucrative power project.
7. On February 24, 2015, the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company “Goodyear” agreed to pay more than $16 million to settle FCPA charges that two of its African subsidiaries allegedly paid $3.2 million in bribes that generated $14,122,535 in illicit profits. The SEC FCPA charges involved Goodyear subsidiaries in Kenya and Angola for allegedly paying bribes to government and private-sector workers in exchange for sales in each country. According to the SEC because “Goodyear did not prevent or detect these improper payments because it failed to implement adequate FCPA compliance controls at its subsidiaries” and, for the Kenyan subsidiary, “because it failed to conduct adequate due diligence” prior to its acquisition. It was not alleged that Goodyear had any involvement with or knowledge of its subsidiaries’ improper conduct.
How businesses are tackling post FCPA environment
Businesses increasingly focus on their core competencies, and as a result engage more third parties to provide critical business functions. Companies do not have direct control over their third-party providers, which expose them to regulatory and reputational risk of FCPA violations by those third parties. Under the FCPA, businesses are accountable for activities involving both their internal and external relationships. Companies that operate internationally, or that engage third parties in countries with a high Corruption Perceptions Index, are especially at risk. Many companies have now adopted “anti-bribery/anti-corruption” (ABAC) solutions to combat this risk and help protect themselves from fines and reputational damage.
ABAC compliance solutions are a subset of third party management. These systems can automatically manage third party information and monitor their ongoing activities in compliance with FCPA regulation. Most of the companies have started adopting ABAC policies as a standard measure to avoid non-compliance of FCPA.
Other methods adopted:
1. Adopt a Code of Ethics Policy to demonstrate “zero tolerance” toward bribery, corruption and non-compliance of FCPA.
2. Conduct regular trainings for employees to apprise them on the Code of Ethics policy, anti-bribery and FCPA provisions
3. Undertake robust, thorough due diligence of third parties before appointing them
4. Set up an effective Internal control mechanism
5. Set up hotline for employees to report on red flags and other issues pertaining to Anti-Bribery, Anti-Corruption
Significance and Applicability from Indian Perspective
India has been ranked 81 among 180 countries on Corruption Perceptions Index, 2017 which makes it moderately prone to corrupt practices being prevalent for businesses.
US is the second largest source of FDI in India and also the second largest trade partner after EU. Not only that, US is the largest services export destination for India as well. In fact, American companies in India form the major part of the foreign companies operating in this country. According to the American Chamber of Commerce in India, their membership base has soared up from zero in 1992 to more than 300 till date.Out of the top 20 IT companies operating in India, 9 are from the U.S. These American companies in India account for about 37% of the turnover of the top 20 firms operating in India.
The above paras, if read in harmony, clearly states the need to understand the applicability and compliance of FCPA in India by certain entities. Its applicability in Indian sphere can be better understood by following examples:
1. In March 2011, Wal-Mart, the US-based company had started a worldwide review of its policies, practices and internal controls for Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) compliance. Since the implementation of the global review and the enhanced anti-corruption compliance programme, the company has identified additional allegations regarding potential violations of the FCPA.
According to news reports, Bharti Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart’s joint venture with India’s Bharti Enterprises suspended a few associates and committed to conduct a complete and thorough investigation as a part of abovementioned review.
2. Recently, The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has unearthed a corruption network that allegedly operated at the highest levels of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI). The watchdog said US infrastructure contractor CDM Smith paid bribes of about $1.18 million (Rs 7.5 crore) to the officials to win contracts and avoid service tax payments.
3. In another case last year, it was reported in the news that Global confectioner and food major Mondelez International will pay USD 13 million penalty to the US government for its subsidiary, erstwhile Cadbury India, violating anti-corruption law while getting regulatory approvals for the expansion of a unit in Himachal Pradesh. The matter relates to the violation of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in India by Cadbury India, which had in 2009, took the help of an agent to obtain “outside assistance” in securing various licenses and approvals to increase production capacity of one of its unit at Baddi, Himachal Pradesh.
Example of Risky Area
CSR activities under Indian Companies Act
India’s Companies Act of 2013 requires that certain companies must spend, on CSR activities, at least two percent (2 percent) of their average net profits made during the three immediately preceding financial years. The act further requires companies to publish a clearly articulated CSR policy and to establish a CSR committee of the board of directors to oversee all CSR spending.
Charitable contributions present a known opportunity for bribery. In the context of CSR activities, bribe requests typically arise in two circumstances
1. In selecting which charitable or nongovernmental organizations to which the company should allocate its CSR spending; and
2. If a company decides to undertake CSR activities directly (as opposed to making charitable contributions) in obtaining the necessary permissions, approvals, and licenses to engage in/conduct/execute the CSR activities.
Although the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice acknowledge that legitimate corporate charitable giving does not violate the FCPA (and, indeed, encourages corporate social responsibility), the agencies have warned against using the charitable contributions as a way to bribe foreign officials.
The SEC’s 2016 enforcement action against Nu Skin is illustrative of how charitable contributions, when given for improper reasons, can violate the FCPA. According to the SEC, Chinese officials uncovered evidence that Nu Skin’s subsidiary in China violated local rules regulating direct selling and, in turn, threatened to impose a fine of 2.8 million RMB ($431,088). Managers at Nu Skin China asked a high-ranking party official to intervene in the dispute, offering in return that Nu Skin China would make a donation to a charity of the party official’s choice. Nu Skin China subsequently made a 1 million RMB ($150,000) donation to a charity identified by the party official and, two days after the donation ceremony, Nu Skin China received notice that it would not be charged or fined for purportedly violating the direct-selling regulation.
According to the SEC, Nu Skin’s charitable donation “was inaccurately and/or unfairly described as a donation rather than a payment to influence the Party Official to favorably impact the outcome of the AIC investigation.” The SEC further noted that, “given the well-known corruption risks in China, Nu Skin U.S. did not ensure that adequate due diligence was conducted by Nu Skin China with respect to charitable donations to identify links to government or political party officials and to prevent payments intended to improperly influence such persons in violation of the company’s anti-corruption policy and the FCPA.” In settling the investigation with the SEC, Nu Skin paid over $750,000 in disgorgement, civil monetary penalties, and prejudgment interest.
Mitigations of such Risks
1. Policy Framework: Companies should have a clearly articulated CSR policy and establish a CSR committee of the board of directors to oversee all CSR spending, as is required under Indian law. The CSR policy should, in turn, reference and incorporate the company’s anti-bribery policies and must lay out the manner, form, and procedure for allocating CSR spending.
2. Due Diligence: Companies should conduct thorough due diligence on the charities to which they allocate CSR contributions. While India’s anti-corruption enforcement efforts have improved, India still remains a challenging business environment. In addition, companies have the ability under the act to pool charitable efforts with other companies. Pooling CSR spending is an attractive option for companies to consider, as it minimizes the possibility of one company directing CSR spending for the purpose of improperly influencing a public official to act on that company’s behalf.
3. Transfer of Funds: Companies should ensure that funds are deposited directly into an authorized account of the designated charitable organization or foundation, and not to an individual recipient. Payment should be made via a verifiable source, such as check or wire transfer. Contributions should never be made in cash.
4. Independent Projects: Companies that elect to fulfill CSR requirements through internal initiatives (as opposed to making external contributions) should apply the same FCPA controls and procedures that the company would use in other commercial business activities. By way of example, a company that uses CSR funds to build community bathrooms should ensure that it has obtained all necessary permissions and approvals in a timely manner. The lack of proper documentation, even for a charitable project, significantly raises the potential for bribe requests.
5. Monitoring: Companies should monitor donations and projects undertaken to confirm that their contributions are being used for the stated purpose. To this end, companies should consider implementing control measures such as auditing, compliance certifications, anti-corruption provisions, and staggered release of contributions.
6. Documentation: Importantly, companies should maintain a due diligence file documenting each step taken by the company in selecting the charity. In the event that U.S. regulators question the propriety of CSR spending, the company’s best defense will be complete and accurate documentation on how it allocated CSR funds.
Clearly, multinational companies preparing to do/ are doing business in India should be rigorous when it comes to fighting corruption. This can include instituting a culture of FCPA compliance across Indian subsidiaries, affiliates, and alliances by focusing on creating strong due diligence, internal audit departments, and training programs as well as clear policies and procedures.
Due diligence should be at the top of the list when looking to acquire a company or form an alliance in India and it should continue to be an ongoing part of doing business in the country once a deal is consummated. For any company that is doing business abroad, and in particular in India with partners, a company needs to have in place rigorous due diligence procedures both with respect to the entities in the contracts that they are entering into and have entered into as well as the executives and senior management of the companies they’re going to be doing business with.
Any FCPA violations and vulnerabilities should be identified. In very specific circumstances, the DOJ may allow extension of the due diligence period beyond a merger deadline to allow more thorough scrutiny by the acquiring entity. As part of a stringent due diligence process, companies should be familiar with their business counterparties’ qualifications, reputation, work scope, and whether any individual at the entity has government ties. The company needs to know who they are doing business with. If they are starting up an organization or replacing their senior leadership, they need to know what is the executive’s pattern (of conduct), past history, and reputation. Knowing that can help them be very successful in managing the culture and the tone of the local organization.
Any suspicion of FCPA violations should trigger an investigation by a team from compliance, legal or internal audit departments of accounting documents and significant correspondences for signs of any wrongdoing, such as false documentation, which can be a big problem in India. It is recommended that longer term organizations set up an internal audit group that goes throughout the organization globally and spends some time in the local subsidiaries evaluating the fraud risk, the red flags and doing some interviews, talking to employees and looking at transactions.
Electronic-search techniques using key words or data-anomaly tests and data mining through the accounting system can help expedite the investigation if circumstances allow such access. Follow-up with interviews of employees, vendors, customers, distributors and suppliers can also help reveal violations.
Remedial action should be taken to correct any problems, even renegotiating contract terms to what they might have been without the illegal payment. Before closing a deal, opinions can be obtained from the DOJ about the set of facts and whether they will violate the FCPA. It would be prudent for companies to highly consider the DOJ’s opinion. Training and education can also be crucial in combating bribery and corruption. Employees must understand what is and is not allowed in clear communications from the top of the company. One of the leading practices in this arena is to have an FCPA specialist in-country to carry on an open dialogue along with the company’s local leaders on the FCPA and anti-corruption. It is also important to have someone who is highly respected within the organization leading the training, making himself or herself available for casual questions or consultations. It has to be interactive. It has to be responsive, because there are a lot of situations where someone may perceive that it is a problem when in fact it is not and of course the reverse occurs.
Online and in person training focused on practical issues and real-life case studies should be provided, since they are critical to underscoring what constitutes violations and how to avoid them. Having a whistleblower hotline to encourage employees — as well as vendors and customers, to report violations not only helps combat corruption but also makes it clear that the company values compliance. A whistleblower hotline can help the company determine whether they are doing the right thing and if their ethics and compliance policy is being followed.
Strong internal audit programs can also help drive effective firm-wide FCPA compliance as internal auditors can test and confirm that FCPA controls are working as intended. Internal auditors can help identify areas at high risk for corruption and investigate any red flags through interviews with employees and by testing transactions.
Another essential component in the fight against FCPA violations is the dissemination of clear and concise policies across a firm, including Indian subsidiaries — outlining what is allowed and the procedures to be followed. This is especially important where there are grey areas such as facilitation payments, while such payments are done to speed up routine government functions are allowed, they can be hard to distinguish from bribes and can be viewed quite narrowly by regulators.
For example, Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation discovered this when the SEC recently concluded that payments by their Indian subsidiary to try to stop frequent tax audits, among other things, were made to influence the outcome and as such were bribes. To avoid any confusion, many companies, simply do not permit facilitation payments.
While avoiding FCPA violations can be difficult, for companies doing business in India it can be even more challenging. To be successful in steering clear of potential FCPA violations, companies should implement a firm-wide culture of compliance with effective due diligence, internal audit practices, training and education, and clear policies and procedures. One of the key points is the setting of the right culture and tone from the top.
Highly-effective companies share their code of conduct and compliance policy broadly with vendors and customers. It’s important that companies take steps to ensure that their (business) partners are operating in a clean fashion. Moreover, certifications from all counterparties that they will abide by FCPA requirements must be taken. These are all things that companies can and should do, and if they receive pushback from the third party, that should be an enormous red flag about going forward with the relationship. Along similar lines, Transparency International India is encouraging corporations in the public sector to sign an integrity pact before bidding on government contracts in which all participants — including the government, agree not to take or offer bribes or suffer penalties if they do.
When a company suspects or uncovers an FCPA violation, its response can be crucial in preventing repeat offenses. Leadership should carefully consider each situation, including asking people to leave the organization or terminating certain relationships with vendors. These are the type of actions that make employees, vendors, and customers understand that you are serious about compliance with the organization’s policies and procedures and that you do live by its code of conduct.
CA Anurag Gupta
Sheria ya Ufisadi wa Nje (FCPA) ni sheria ya shirikisho, inayotumika na Idara ya Sheria ya Marekani, ambayo inakataza malipo, zawadi, au hata ofa za "kila kitu cha thamani" kwa "mfanyakazi wa kigeni" kwa kusudi la kuathiri afisa au vinginevyo "kuhakikisha faida yoyote isiyofaa" katika kupata, kudumisha au kuelekeza biashara. Sheria ya Ufisadi wa Nje (FCPA) inatoa sheria ya kisheria ya kisheria ambayo inatoa mamlaka ya kisheria ya kuathiri wafanyikazi wa serikali na serikali za kigeni kwa malipo au zawadi za kibinafsi. Sheria ya Fedha ya Fedha inatumika kwa mtu yeyote ambaye ana kiwango fulani cha uhusiano na Marekani na kushiriki katika mazoea ya ufisadi ya kigeni. Sheria hiyo inatumika pia kwa hatua yoyote ya biashara ya Marekani, mashirika ya kigeni ya biashara ya dhamana nchini Marekani, raia wa Marekani, raia, na wakazi wanaofanya kazi katika kuendeleza mazoea ya ufisadi ya kigeni, iwe ni au si wao ni kimwili sasa katika Marekani. Hii inachukuliwa kuwa kanuni ya utaifa wa kitendo hicho. Watu wowote wanaohusika katika shughuli hizo wanaweza kukabiliwa na kifungo cha gereza. Sheria hiyo ilitolewa ili kufanya iwe kinyume cha sheria kwa makundi fulani ya watu na mashirika kufanya malipo kwa maafisa wa serikali za kigeni kusaidia katika kupata au kudumisha biashara. Kwa watu wa kigeni wa asili na kisheria, Sheria inashughulikia matendo yao ikiwa wako nchini Marekani wakati wa tabia ya ufisadi. Hii inachukuliwa kuwa kanuni ya ulinzi wa kitendo hicho. Sheria hiyo inatawala malipo kwa maafisa, wagombea, na vyama vya kigeni, lakini pia kwa mpokeaji mwingine yeyote ikiwa sehemu ya rushwa ni hatimaye attributable kwa afisa, mgombea, au chama kigeni. Malipo hayo hayakubaliwi tu kwa kutumia pesa tu, bali yanaweza kutia ndani vitu vyovyote vyenye thamani. Hii inachukuliwa kuwa kanuni ya eneo la sheria. Sheria ya Ufisadi wa Nje (FCPA) iliyopitishwa mnamo 1977 inakataza kutoa rushwa kwa maafisa wa kigeni kusaidia kupata au kudumisha biashara. Sheria ya FCPA inaweza kutumika kwa tabia iliyokatazwa mahali popote ulimwenguni na inaenea kwa makampuni ya biashara ya umma na maafisa wao, wakurugenzi, wafanyikazi, wanahisa, na mawakala. Mawakala wanaweza ni pamoja na mawakala wa tatu, washauri, wasambazaji, washirika wa ushirikiano, na wengine. Sheria inahusu nia ya rushwa badala ya kiasi, hakuna mahitaji ya umuhimu. Kutoa kitu chochote chenye thamani kama rushwa, iwe ni pesa taslimu au vitu visivyo vya pesa taslimu, ni marufuku. Sheria ya Fedha ya Fedha pia inahitaji makampuni ambayo dhamana yake imeorodheshwa nchini Marekani kutimiza masharti yake ya uhasibu. Sheria hii ya uhasibu inatumika kwa pamoja na sheria za kupambana na rushwa za FCPA na inahitaji mashirika ya kuunda na kuweka vitabu na rekodi ambazo zinaonyesha kwa usahihi na kwa uadilifu shughuli za kampuni na kuunda na kudumisha mfumo wa kutosha wa udhibiti wa uhasibu wa ndani. Idadi inayoongezeka ya makampuni inachukua hatua za ziada kulinda sifa yao na kupunguza mfiduo wao kwa kutumia huduma za makampuni ya bidii ya lazima, ambayo yana jukumu la kuchunguza wawakilishi wa tatu na kutambua maafisa wa serikali ambao hupuuzwa kwa urahisi katika makampuni ya kigeni ya kibinafsi. Mkakati huu ni kipengele kimoja cha Programu ya Ufuatiliaji wa FCPA, kwani inaonyesha jaribio la dhati la kuepuka hali za biashara ambapo hatari ya juu (historia ya awali au ukaribu na tabia isiyo ya maadili) inahusu. Mtu anafanya kazi kwa kusudi la ufisadi ikiwa anatoa, anaahidi, au hutoa kitu cha thamani kwa afisa wa kigeni - moja kwa moja au kupitia mtu wa tatu - kwa ushawishi usiofaa wa afisa wa kigeni ili kupata, kudumisha, au kuelekeza biashara au kupata faida yoyote isiyofaa ya biashara. "Kuhusu malipo kwa maafisa wa kigeni, sheria hiyo inatofautisha kati ya rushwa na kuwezesha au ""malipo ya mafuta,"" ambayo inaweza kuruhusiwa chini ya FCPA, lakini bado inaweza kuvunja sheria za ndani." Tofauti kuu ni kwamba malipo ya mafuta au malipo ya kurahisisha hutolewa kwa afisa ili kuharakisha utendaji wake wa majukumu ya kawaida ambayo tayari amefungwa kufanya. Tofauti inazingatia kusudi la malipo badala ya thamani yake. Malipo kwa maafisa wa kigeni yanaweza kuwa halali chini ya FCPA ikiwa malipo yanaruhusiwa chini ya sheria zilizoandikwa za nchi mwenyeji. Malipo au malipo fulani yanayohusiana na kukuza bidhaa yanaweza pia kuruhusiwa chini ya FCPA. Kwa ujumla, kuna hali tatu ambazo malipo kwa maafisa wa kigeni hayatasababisha dhima chini ya FCPA. Njia moja ni kuonyesha kwamba mwenendo challenged iko ndani ya kinachoitwa "routine hatua ya serikali" ubaguzi kwa FCPA. "Hatua nyingine mbili zinahusisha kutumia kile kinachojulikana kama ""utetezi wa uthibitisho"" - utetezi wa uthibitisho kwa ujumla ni uthibitisho wa ukweli na hoja ambazo, ikiwa ni kweli, zitashinda madai ya mashtaka, hata kama madai yote yaliyotolewa na mashtaka ni kweli." Kuna njia mbili za utetezi chini ya FCPA. "Hii ni pamoja na sheria ya ""Utekelezaji wa Serikali ya kawaida"" ambayo inatoa sheria ya ""Utekelezaji wa Serikali ya kawaida"" ambayo inahusu shughuli za kawaida ambazo zinafanywa na maafisa wa serikali za kigeni." Kupata vibali, leseni, au hati nyingine rasmi ili kumhusu mtu kufanya biashara katika nchi ya kigeni. 2. Uwezekano wa kupata Kuhifadhi nyaraka za serikali, kama vile visa na maagizo ya kazi. 3. Uwe na mtazamo wa kweli Kuandaa ulinzi wa polisi, kukusanya na kupeleka barua, au kupanga ukaguzi unaohusiana na utendaji wa mkataba au ukaguzi unaohusiana na usafirishaji wa bidhaa kote nchini. 4. Uwe na uhakika Utoaji wa huduma za simu, umeme na maji, kupakia na kupakua mizigo, au kulinda bidhaa au bidhaa zinazoweza kuharibika kutoka kwa uharibifu; au Matendo ya asili sawa. Hatua ya kawaida ya serikali haijumuishi, kati ya hatua nyingine, uamuzi wowote wa afisa wa kigeni ikiwa, au kwa masharti gani, kutoa biashara mpya kwa kampuni au kuendelea na biashara na kampuni, au hatua yoyote iliyochukuliwa na afisa wa kigeni anayehusika katika mchakato wa kufanya maamuzi ili kuhamasisha uamuzi wa kutoa biashara mpya kwa kampuni au kuendelea na biashara na kampuni. "Hii ni kwa sababu kuna hali mbili ambazo malipo, zawadi, toleo, au ahadi ya kitu chochote cha thamani kwa afisa wa kigeni inaweza kufuzu kama ""utetezi wa dhahiri"" chini ya FCPA." Malipo, zawadi, kutoa, au ahadi ya kitu chochote cha thamani ni halali chini ya sheria na kanuni zilizoandikwa za afisa wa kigeni, chama cha siasa, afisa wa chama, au nchi ya mgombea; au 2. "Malipo, zawadi, au ahadi ya kitu chochote cha thamani ni gharama ya busara na ya kweli, kama vile gharama za kusafiri na malazi, zinazohusiana moja kwa moja na kukuza, kuonyesha au kuelezea bidhaa au huduma, au utekelezaji au utendaji wa mkataba na serikali ya kigeni au shirika lake. """ "Hii inamaanisha kwamba, ikiwa unashtakiwa kwa kutoa rushwa kwa afisa wa kigeni, utakuwa na ulinzi wa kuthibitisha ikiwa unaweza kuonyesha kwamba malipo, zawadi, kutoa, au ahadi ya kitu chochote cha thamani kwa afisa wa kigeni ilikuwa halali chini ya sheria na kanuni zilizoandikwa za nchi ya afisa huyo wa kigeni, au ilikuwa inahusiana na gharama ya busara na ya kweli kama ilivyoelezwa hapo juu. """ "Kutegemea sheria ya nchi ya kigeni kama utetezi wa dhahiri kwa malipo, zawadi, toleo, au ahadi ya kitu chochote cha thamani kwa afisa wa kigeni, sheria au kanuni inayotegemea, wakati wa mwenendo, lazima iwe ""imeandikwa"" Mazoea ya ndani, desturi, au sera nyingine zisizoandikwa hazistahili kama utetezi wa dhahiri." Kwa kuongezea, hatua za hivi karibuni za utekelezaji wa FCPA zimehusisha kusafiri, malazi, na burudani zinazotolewa kwa maafisa wa kigeni. "Kama ilivyo kwa malipo ya kuwezesha, watoaji ambao hupata aina hizi za gharama kwa niaba ya maafisa wa serikali za kigeni lazima wawe na udhibiti wa ndani unaofaa na taratibu za kufuata mahali ili kuhakikisha kwamba gharama hizi zinakidhi vigezo vya ""sababu"" na ""bona fide"" ya utetezi huu wa dhahiri na zinakubaliwa na kuandikwa katika vitabu na rekodi za mtoaji." Hatua za kisheria na adhabu kwa ajili ya makosa ya FCPA inaweza kuwa kubwa. Kampuni ambazo zimetenda ukiukaji wa kisheria au wa jinai wa FCPA zinaweza kulazimika kulipa faida zilizopatikana kwa kufanya malipo yasiyofaa kupitia disbursement au kurudishwa pamoja na riba ya hukumu ya awali, kulipa faini kubwa za jinai au adhabu za kiraia, na au kuwa chini ya usimamizi wa mfuatiliaji wa kufuata huru. Kwa watu binafsi, hatia ya ukiukaji wa uhalifu wa FCPA inaweza kusababisha kifungo cha jela na faini kubwa. Sheria ya Fedha ya Fedha inakataza makampuni kulipa faini zilizopatikana na watu binafsi, moja kwa moja au kwa njia isiyo ya moja kwa moja. Watu binafsi pia ni chini ya adhabu kubwa ya kiraia na disgorgement pamoja na riba ya prejudgment. "Kama mfano, kampuni ya Louis Berger Group, Inc. (LBG) ilitoa malalamiko katika mahakama ya jimbo la New Jersey Juni 10, 2016 dhidi ya Mkurugenzi Mtendaji wa zamani wa kampuni hiyo, Richard Hirsch, akidai kwamba Hirsch alivunja wajibu wake wa uaminifu kwa kampuni hiyo kwa kuidhinisha malipo yasiyofaa kwa kukiuka Sheria ya Mazoea ya Ufisadi ya Kigeni (FCPA) nchini Vietnam na Indonesia kutoka 1999-2004.""" Wakati wa malipo, Hirsch alikuwa mfanyakazi mwandamizi wa LBG nchini Indonesia, Ufilipino na Vietnam. Mfuko huo ulifanyiwa uchunguzi wa sheria ya FCPA na idara ya haki na ulisababisha, kati ya mambo mengine, makubaliano ya Julai 2015 ambayo LGBTI ililipa adhabu ya dola milioni 17.1 na kukubali kudumisha mfuatiliaji wa kufuata kwa miaka mitatu. LBG pia ilikuwa chini ya kipindi cha kutengwa na Benki ya Dunia. LBG's malalamiko madai kwamba Hirsch's tabia kuvunja wote FCPA na sera za kampuni. LGB inataka kupata adhabu ya kifedha iliyolipwa na kampuni hiyo, ada zilizopatikana kuhusiana na uchunguzi wa malipo yasiyofaa na kutatua suala hilo na DOJ, uharibifu unaohusiana na madai ya madhara kwa sifa ya LGB na mahusiano ya biashara, na malipo ambayo yalipigwa kwa Hirsch ili kufidia ada zake za kisheria na gharama kuhusiana na uchunguzi wa DOJ. LGBTI ilikataza kazi ya Hirsch mnamo 2011 baada ya kukataa kushirikiana na uchunguzi wa ndani wa kampuni hiyo. Hirsch alikiri kuwa na hatia ya ukiukaji wa sheria ya FCPA mnamo Julai 2015, na anatarajiwa kuhukumiwa mwezi ujao. Taarifa za hivi karibuni na mipango ya sera ya DOJ, ikikazia juhudi zake za kuwajibisha watu binafsi kwa makosa ya ushirika, ikiwa ni pamoja na chini ya FCPA, imetoa kumbukumbu za kuamsha kwa watendaji wa biashara ya hitaji la kufuata kwa ukali na matokeo ya makosa. Alerts ya awali imezungumzia athari za sera hizi na matarajio kwamba watu binafsi na waajiri wanaweza kukabiliwa si tu madai ya uwezekano au mashtaka na mamlaka ya serikali, lakini pia kufuatilia juu ya madai ya kiraia, ikiwa ni pamoja na hatua za kundi la wanahisa na hatua za derivatives. LGBTI inatoa fursa nyingine ya uwezekano wa kuambukizwa kwa watu wanaohusika katika shughuli zisizo za haki za kibiashara. Kwa kuzingatia gharama kubwa za uchunguzi mwingi unaohusiana na FCPA na faini kubwa na matokeo ya dhamana inayowezekana iliyowekwa katika uchunguzi mwingi wa FCPA, madai kama vile LBG inaweza kuwaweka watendaji wa biashara kuwa na dhima kubwa. Sheria ya Fedha ya Fedha ina mahitaji mawili ya uhasibu: Vitabu na rekodi 2. "Kifungu cha ""Mabuku na Rekodi"" kinahitaji kampuni kuunda na kuweka vitabu, rekodi, na akaunti ambazo, kwa undani wa busara, zinaonyesha kwa usahihi na kwa uadilifu shughuli na utoaji wa mali ya kampuni." Masharti ya "udhibiti wa ndani" yanahitaji kampuni kuunda na kudumisha mfumo wa udhibiti wa ndani wa uhasibu wa kutosha kutoa uhakikisho wa busara kwamba: 1. Biashara ni kutekelezwa kwa mujibu wa mamlaka ya usimamizi. 2. Uwezekano wa kupata Shughuli ni kumbukumbu kama inahitajika ili kuruhusu uandaaji wa taarifa za kifedha na kudumisha uwajibikaji kwa mali. 3. Uwe na mtazamo wa kweli Upatikanaji wa mali ni mdogo kwa idhini ya usimamizi. 4. Uwe na uhakika Uhasibu wa mali uliorekodiwa unalinganishwa na mali zilizopo kwa vipindi vya busara na hatua sahihi huchukuliwa kuhusiana na tofauti zozote. Mfano wa zamani wa kutofuata FCPA Siemens ililipa faini ya dola milioni 450 kwa kukiuka sheria ya FCPA Hii ni moja ya adhabu kubwa zaidi zilizowahi kukusanywa na Dola ya Sheria (Diplomasia ya Sheria) kwa kesi ya FCPA. Siemens scandal ni kashfa ya rushwa ya serikali ya Ugiriki iliyofanyika wakati wa michezo ya Olimpiki ya Athens mwaka 2004 na ilihusisha makampuni ya mawasiliano ya OTE. 2. Uwezekano wa kupata Kampuni ya Marubeni Corporation ililipa faini ya dola milioni 54.6 kwa ukiukaji wa FCPA wakati wa kufanya kazi kama wakala wa kampuni ya pamoja ya TKJ, ambayo ilijumuisha Technip, Snamprogati Netherlands BV, Kellogg Brown & Root Inc. na JGC Corporation. Tangu mwaka 1995 hadi 2004, kampuni hiyo ilishinda mikataba minne nchini Nigeria yenye thamani ya zaidi ya dola bilioni 6 kama matokeo ya kulipa Marubeni dola milioni 51 ili itumiwe kuwadanganya maafisa wa serikali ya Nigeria. 3. Uwe na mtazamo wa kweli Smith & Nephew ililipa dola milioni 22.2 kwa DOL na SEC, na BizJet International Sales and Support Inc. ililipa dola milioni 11.8 kwa DOL kwa rushwa ya maafisa wa serikali za kigeni. Kampuni zote mbili ziliingia katika makubaliano ya mashtaka ya kucheleweshwa. 4. Uwe na uhakika Biomet Inc. ililipa faini ya $ 17.3 milioni kwa makosa ya FCPA na $ 5.5 milioni kwa faida na riba ya kabla ya hukumu kwa SEC. 5. Uwe na mtazamo mzuri. Alcoa ililipa dola milioni 175 za ushuru na faini ya dola milioni 209 ili kusuluhisha mashtaka ya kampuni yake ya Australia ya madini ya bauxite ya kumshikilia wakala ambaye alitoa rushwa kwa maafisa wa serikali nchini Bahrain na maafisa wa Aluminium Bahrain. Mkataba wa muda mrefu wa usambazaji wa madini ya bauxite Kampuni ya Marubeni ilikubaliana na idara ya sheria kulipa faini ya dola milioni 88 baada ya kukubali kuwa na hatia ya kushiriki katika mpango wa kutoa rushwa kwa maafisa wa ngazi ya juu wa Indonesia ili kupata mradi wa umeme wenye faida. 7. Uwe na mtazamo gani? "Kama ilivyoelezwa hapo awali, kampuni ya Goodyear ya Tire na Rubber ilikubali kulipa zaidi ya $ 16 milioni kwa kulipa mashtaka ya FCPA kwamba kampuni zake mbili za Kiafrika zililipwa $ 3.2 milioni katika rushwa ambayo ilizalisha $ 14,122,535 katika faida haramu. """ Mashtaka ya SECPA yalihusisha kampuni ndogo za Goodyear nchini Kenya na Angola kwa madai ya kulipa rushwa kwa wafanyikazi wa serikali na sekta binafsi kwa kubadilishana na mauzo katika kila nchi. Kwa mujibu wa SEC, Goodyear haikuzuia au kugundua malipo haya yasiyofaa kwa sababu ilishindwa kutekeleza udhibiti wa kutosha wa kufuata FCPA katika kampuni zake ndogo, na kwa kampuni ndogo ya Kenya, kwa sababu ilishindwa kufanya bidii ya kutosha kabla ya ununuzi wake. Haikuelezwa kwamba Goodyear alikuwa na ushiriki wowote na au ujuzi wa vitendo visivyofaa vya kampuni zake tanzu. Kwa sababu ya hali ya biashara ya baada ya FCPA, wafanyabiashara wanaendelea kuzingatia uwezo wao wa msingi na kwa hivyo wanashirikiana na watu wengine zaidi kutoa kazi muhimu za biashara. Kampuni hazina udhibiti wa moja kwa moja juu ya watoa huduma wa tatu, ambayo huwaweka kwenye hatari ya udhibiti na sifa ya ukiukaji wa FCPA na watu hao wa tatu. Kwa mujibu wa Sheria ya Fedha ya Fedha, biashara zinawajibika kwa shughuli zinazohusisha mahusiano yao ya ndani na ya nje. Kampuni zinazofanya kazi kimataifa, au ambazo zinashirikiana na watu wa tatu katika nchi zilizo na Kiashiria cha Ufisadi cha juu, ziko katika hatari hasa. Kampuni nyingi sasa zimepitisha suluhisho la kupambana na rushwa na ufisadi (ABAC) kupambana na hatari hii na kusaidia kujilinda dhidi ya faini na uharibifu wa sifa. Utaratibu wa kufuata ABAC ni sehemu ya usimamizi wa chama cha tatu. Mifumo hii inaweza kusimamia moja kwa moja habari za watu wa tatu na kufuatilia shughuli zao zinazoendelea kwa kufuata kanuni za FCPA. Kampuni nyingi zimeanza kupitisha sera za ABAC kama hatua ya kawaida ili kuepuka kutofuata FCPA. Mbinu nyingine zilizotumiwa: 1. Kuchukua Sera ya Kanuni za Maadili ili kuonyesha "uvumilivu wa sifuri" kuelekea rushwa, ufisadi na kutofuata FCPA. 2. Uwezekano wa kupata Mazoezi ya kawaida kwa wafanyakazi ili kuwajulisha sera za kanuni za maadili, kupambana na rushwa na masharti ya FCPA. Kuchukua dhamana ya kutosha na ya kina ya watu wa tatu kabla ya kuwakusanya. Kuanzisha utaratibu wa ufanisi wa udhibiti wa ndani 5. "Kuweka ""nambari ya simu"" kwa wafanyakazi kutoa ripoti juu ya bendera nyekundu na masuala mengine yanayohusiana na kupambana na rushwa, umuhimu wa kupambana na rushwa na matumizi kutoka kwa mtazamo wa India India imeorodheshwa 81 kati ya nchi 180 kwenye Chati ya Uelewa wa Ufisadi, 2017 ambayo inafanya kuwa na uwezekano wa kawaida wa mazoea ya ufisadi kuwa ya kawaida kwa biashara." Marekani ni chanzo cha pili kwa ukubwa cha FDI nchini India na pia ni mshirika wa pili kwa ukubwa wa kibiashara baada ya Umoja wa Ulaya. Kwa kuongezea, Marekani pia ni nchi kubwa zaidi ya kuuza nje huduma za India. Kampuni za Marekani nchini India zinafanya kazi katika sehemu kubwa ya kampuni za kigeni zinazofanya kazi nchini humo. Kulingana na Chama cha Biashara cha Marekani nchini India, idadi ya wanachama wa kampuni hiyo imepanda kutoka sifuri mwaka 1992 hadi zaidi ya 300 hadi sasa. Kampuni hizo za Marekani nchini India zinawakilisha asilimia 37 ya mauzo ya makampuni 20 makubwa yanayofanya kazi nchini India. "Kama vifungu vya juu, ikiwa vimesomwa kwa upatano, vinaelezea wazi haja ya kuelewa matumizi na kufuata FCPA nchini India na vyombo fulani. """ Upatikanaji wake katika uwanja wa India unaweza kueleweka vizuri kwa mifano ifuatayo: 1. Wal-Mart, kampuni ya kimataifa ya biashara ya bidhaa za kigeni, ilianza uchunguzi wa sera zake, mazoea na udhibiti wa ndani kwa kufuata Sheria ya Mazoea ya Ufisadi ya Kigeni (FCPA). Tangu utekelezaji wa ukaguzi wa kimataifa na programu ya kuimarisha ya kupambana na ufisadi, kampuni hiyo imegundua madai ya ziada kuhusu ukiukaji wa uwezekano wa FCPA. Wal-Mart, kampuni ya pamoja ya kampuni ya India Bharti Enterprises, imesimamisha kazi ya washirika wake kadhaa na kujitolea kufanya uchunguzi kamili na wa kina kama sehemu ya ukaguzi uliotajwa hapo juu. 2. Uwezekano wa kupata Tume ya Uangalifu ya Kati (CVC) imegundua mtandao wa ufisadi ambao unadaiwa kuendeshwa katika ngazi za juu za Mamlaka ya Barabara ya Taifa ya India (NHAI) na Idara Kuu ya Ujasusi wa Excise ya Kati (DGCEI). Kampuni ya ujenzi ya Marekani ya CDM Smith ilitoa rushwa ya dola milioni 1.18 kwa maafisa hao ili kushinda mikataba na kuepuka kulipa kodi ya huduma. 3. Uwe na mtazamo wa kweli Kampuni ya chakula na keki ya Mondelez International imetoa taarifa ya kifungo cha dola milioni 13 kwa serikali ya Marekani kwa kampuni yake ya Cadbury India, ambayo ilivunja sheria ya kupambana na ufisadi wakati wa kupata idhini ya usimamizi wa upanuzi wa kiwanda chake huko Himachal Pradesh. "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika taarifa ya shirika la habari la India, kampuni ya Cadbury India iliripoti kuwa ilitumia ""msaada wa nje"" kupata leseni na idhini za kuongeza uwezo wa uzalishaji wa kiwanda cha kampuni hiyo katika mji wa Baddi, Himachal Pradesh." Sheria ya Kampuni ya India ya 2013 inahitaji kwamba makampuni fulani yatumie, kwenye shughuli za CSR, angalau asilimia mbili (asilimia mbili) ya faida yao ya wastani ya jumla iliyofanywa wakati wa miaka mitatu ya kifedha ya awali. Sheria hiyo pia inahitaji makampuni kuchapisha sera ya CSR iliyoelezwa wazi na kuanzisha kamati ya CSR ya bodi ya wakurugenzi kusimamia matumizi yote ya CSR. Michango ya kutoa misaada ni fursa inayojulikana ya kununuliwa. Katika mazingira ya shughuli za CSR, maombi ya rushwa hutokea kwa kawaida katika hali mbili. Kuamua ni mashirika gani ya misaada au yasiyo ya kiserikali ambayo kampuni inapaswa kugawa matumizi yake ya CSR; na Kampuni inayopanga kufanya shughuli za CSR moja kwa moja (kinyume na kutoa michango ya misaada) inahitaji idhini, idhini, na leseni zinazohitajika kushiriki katika shughuli za CSR. Ingawa Tume ya Usalama na Uwekezaji ya Marekani (SEC) na Idara ya Sheria ya Marekani (DOJ) zinatambua kwamba kutoa kwa ajili ya misaada halali ya kampuni haivunji FCPA (na, kwa kweli, hutia moyo wajibu wa kijamii wa kampuni), mashirika hayo yameonya dhidi ya kutumia michango ya misaada kama njia ya kuwadanganya maafisa wa kigeni. Hatua ya kutekeleza ya SEC dhidi ya NuSkin ni mfano wa jinsi michango ya misaada, inapotolewa kwa sababu zisizofaa, inaweza kuvunja FCPA. Kulingana na SEC, maafisa wa China walipata ushahidi kwamba kampuni tanzu ya Nu Skin nchini China ilivunja sheria za ndani zinazosimamia uuzaji wa moja kwa moja na, kwa upande mwingine, walitishia kuweka faini ya RMB 2.8 milioni (US $ 431,088). "Meneja wa Nu Skin China aliomba afisa wa juu wa chama kuingilia katika mzozo huo, akitoa ""mabadiliko"" kwamba Nu Skin China ingetoa mchango kwa shirika la misaada la uchaguzi wa afisa wa chama." "Nafsi ya Nu Skin China baadaye ilitoa mchango wa RMB milioni 1 kwa shirika la misaada lililotajwa na afisa wa chama hicho na siku mbili baada ya sherehe ya mchango, Nu Skin China ilipokea taarifa kwamba haitakabiliwa na mashtaka au faini kwa madai ya kukiuka kanuni za mauzo ya moja kwa moja. """ "Kwa mujibu wa SEC, ""msaada wa misaada ya Nu Skin haikuwa sahihi na haikufafanuliwa kwa haki kama mchango badala ya malipo ya kushawishi afisa wa chama ili kuathiri matokeo ya uchunguzi"" na ""kwa kuzingatia hatari za ufisadi zinazojulikana nchini China, Nu Skin US haikuhakikisha kwamba bidii ya kutosha ilifanywa na Nu Skin China kuhusiana na michango ya misaada ili kutambua uhusiano na maafisa wa serikali au chama cha kisiasa na kuzuia malipo yaliyokusudiwa kushawishi watu kama hao kwa njia isiyofaa, kwa kukiuka sera ya kupambana na ufisadi na FCCPA.""" Kupunguza hatari hizo 1. Kampuni zinapaswa kuwa na sera ya CSR iliyoelezwa wazi na kuanzisha kamati ya CSR ya bodi ya wakurugenzi kusimamia matumizi yote ya CSR, kama inavyotakiwa chini ya sheria ya India. Sera ya CSR inapaswa, kwa upande wake, kurejelea na kuingiza sera za kupambana na rushwa za kampuni na lazima ieleze njia, fomu, na utaratibu wa kugawa matumizi ya CSR. 2. Uwezekano wa kupata Utafiti wa kutosha: Kampuni zinapaswa kufanya uchunguzi wa kutosha juu ya misaada ambayo wanatoa michango ya CSR. Wakati juhudi za India za kupambana na ufisadi zimeboresha, India bado inabaki kuwa mazingira magumu ya biashara. Kwa kuongezea, kampuni zina uwezo chini ya sheria ya kuunganisha juhudi za hisani na kampuni nyingine. Kuunganisha matumizi ya CSR ni chaguo la kuvutia kwa makampuni kuzingatia, kwani hupunguza uwezekano wa kampuni moja kuelekeza matumizi ya CSR kwa kusudi la kushawishi vibaya afisa wa umma kutenda kwa niaba ya kampuni hiyo. 3. Uwe na mtazamo wa kweli "Kama ilivyoelezwa hapo juu, ""Kampuni zinapaswa kuhakikisha kwamba fedha zinahamishwa moja kwa moja kwenye akaunti ya mamlaka ya shirika au msingi wa misaada, na sio kwa mpokeaji binafsi.""" Malipo yanapaswa kufanywa kupitia chanzo kinachoweza kuthibitishwa, kama vile hundi au uhamisho wa waya. Michango haipaswi kamwe kufanywa kwa pesa taslimu. 4. Uwe na uhakika Kampuni ambazo huchagua kutimiza mahitaji ya CSR kupitia mipango ya ndani (kinyume na kutoa michango ya nje) zinapaswa kutumia udhibiti na taratibu sawa za FCPA ambazo kampuni itatumia katika shughuli zingine za biashara. Kwa mfano, kampuni inayotumia fedha za CSR kujenga bafu za jamii inapaswa kuhakikisha kwamba imepata ruhusa na idhini zote muhimu kwa wakati unaofaa. Ukosefu wa nyaraka sahihi, hata kwa ajili ya mradi wa misaada, kwa kiasi kikubwa huongeza uwezekano wa maombi ya rushwa. 5. Uwe na mtazamo mzuri. Ufuatiliaji: Kampuni zinapaswa kufuatilia michango na miradi iliyofanywa ili kuthibitisha kwamba michango yao inatumiwa kwa kusudi lililotajwa. Kwa kusudi hili, makampuni yanapaswa kuzingatia kutekeleza hatua za udhibiti kama vile ukaguzi, vyeti vya kufuata, masharti ya kupambana na ufisadi, na kutolewa kwa michango. 6. Uwe na uhakika Uhakiki: Kampuni zinapaswa kuweka faili ya bidii inayohusisha kila hatua iliyochukuliwa na kampuni katika kuchagua misaada. "Ikiwa wasimamizi wa Marekani watauliza usahihi wa matumizi ya CSR, ulinzi bora wa kampuni itakuwa nyaraka kamili na sahihi juu ya jinsi ilivyotumia fedha za CSR. """ Ni wazi, makampuni ya kimataifa ambayo yanajitayarisha kufanya biashara nchini India yanapaswa kuwa na bidii linapokuja suala la kupambana na ufisadi. Hii inaweza kujumuisha kuanzisha utamaduni wa kufuata FCPA katika matawi ya India, washirika, na ushirikiano kwa kuzingatia kuunda bidii ya lazima, idara za ukaguzi wa ndani, na mipango ya mafunzo, pamoja na sera na taratibu zilizo wazi. Utafiti wa lazima unapaswa kuwa juu ya orodha wakati wa kutafuta kupata kampuni au kuunda muungano nchini India na inapaswa kuendelea kuwa sehemu ya kufanya biashara nchini mara tu mpango umekamilika. Kampuni yoyote inayofanya biashara nje ya nchi, na haswa nchini India na washirika, inahitaji kuwa na taratibu kali za bidii kwa heshima ya mashirika katika mikataba ambayo wanaingia na wameingia, pamoja na watendaji na usimamizi wa juu wa kampuni ambazo watafanya biashara na. Ukiukaji wowote wa FCPA na udhaifu unapaswa kutambuliwa. Katika hali maalum sana, DOD inaweza kuruhusu upanuzi wa kipindi cha bidii baada ya tarehe ya mwisho ya kuunganishwa ili kuruhusu uchunguzi wa kina zaidi na chombo cha kupata. Kama sehemu ya mchakato mkali wa bidii, kampuni zinapaswa kuwa na ufahamu wa sifa za washirika wao wa biashara, sifa, wigo wa kazi, na kama mtu yeyote katika taasisi ana uhusiano wa serikali. Kampuni inahitaji kujua ni nani wanaofanya biashara nao. Ikiwa wanaanzisha shirika au kubadilisha uongozi wao wa juu, wanahitaji kujua ni nini muundo wa mtendaji (wa mwenendo), historia ya zamani, na sifa. Kujua hilo kunaweza kuwasaidia kufanikiwa sana katika kusimamia utamaduni na mtindo wa tengenezo la mahali hapo. Kutofuata sheria za FCPA kunapaswa kusababisha uchunguzi na timu kutoka idara za kufuata, sheria au ukaguzi wa ndani wa nyaraka za uhasibu na mawasiliano muhimu kwa ishara za makosa yoyote, kama vile nyaraka bandia, ambayo inaweza kuwa tatizo kubwa nchini India. Inashauriwa kwamba mashirika ya muda mrefu kuanzisha kundi la ukaguzi wa ndani ambayo huenda katika shirika lote duniani kote na kutumia muda katika matawi ya ndani ya kutathmini hatari ya udanganyifu, bendera nyekundu na kufanya baadhi ya mahojiano, kuzungumza na wafanyakazi na kuangalia shughuli. Mbinu za utafutaji wa elektroniki kwa kutumia maneno muhimu au vipimo vya data-anomaly na uchimbaji wa data kupitia mfumo wa uhasibu unaweza kusaidia kuharakisha uchunguzi ikiwa hali inaruhusu upatikanaji huo. Kufuatilia na mahojiano ya wafanyakazi, wauzaji, wateja, wasambazaji na wauzaji pia inaweza kusaidia kufunua ukiukaji. Hatua za kurekebisha zinapaswa kuchukuliwa kurekebisha matatizo yoyote, hata kujadili tena masharti ya mkataba kwa kile ambacho wangeweza kuwa bila malipo haramu. Kabla ya kufunga mpango, maoni yanaweza kupatikana kutoka kwa DOD kuhusu seti ya ukweli na kama wataki kuvunja FCPA. Ingekuwa busara kwa makampuni kuzingatia sana maoni ya DOJ. Mafunzo na elimu pia inaweza kuwa muhimu katika kupambana na rushwa na ufisadi. Wafanyakazi wanapaswa kuelewa nini ni na si kuruhusiwa katika mawasiliano ya wazi kutoka juu ya kampuni. Miongoni mwa hatua za kuongoza katika uwanja huu ni kuwa na mtaalamu wa FCPA nchini ili kuendelea na mazungumzo ya wazi pamoja na viongozi wa kampuni ya ndani juu ya FCPA na kupambana na ufisadi. Ni muhimu pia kuwa na mtu anayeheshimiwa sana ndani ya shirika anayeongoza mafunzo, akijifanya mwenyewe kupatikana kwa maswali ya kawaida au mashauriano. Ni lazima iwe ya maingiliano. Ni lazima iwe na majibu, kwa sababu kuna hali nyingi ambapo mtu anaweza kuona kuwa ni tatizo wakati kwa kweli si hivyo na bila shaka kinyume hutokea. Mafunzo ya mtandaoni na ya kibinafsi yanapaswa kutolewa, yakilenga masuala ya vitendo na masomo ya kesi ya maisha halisi, kwa kuwa ni muhimu kwa kusisitiza ni nini kinachotengeneza ukiukaji na jinsi ya kuepuka. Kuwa na hotline whistleblower kuhamasisha wafanyakazi - kama vile wauzaji na wateja - kuripoti ukiukaji si tu husaidia kupambana na ufisadi lakini pia hufanya wazi kwamba kampuni inathamini kufuata. Hotline ya Whistleblower inaweza kusaidia kampuni kuamua ikiwa wanafanya jambo sahihi na ikiwa sera yao ya maadili na kufuata inafuatwa. Programu za ukaguzi wa ndani zenye nguvu zinaweza pia kusaidia kuendesha kufuata kwa ufanisi kwa FCPA kwa kampuni nzima kwani wakaguzi wa ndani wanaweza kupima na kuthibitisha kuwa udhibiti wa FCPA unafanya kazi kama ilivyokusudiwa. Wakaguzi wa ndani wanaweza kusaidia kutambua maeneo yenye hatari kubwa ya ufisadi na kuchunguza bendera yoyote nyekundu kupitia mahojiano na wafanyikazi na kwa kupima shughuli. Sehemu nyingine muhimu katika mapambano dhidi ya ukiukaji wa FCPA ni kueneza sera wazi na fupi katika kampuni nzima, ikiwa ni pamoja na kampuni tanzu za India - kuelezea kile kinachoruhusiwa na taratibu zinazopaswa kufuatwa. Hii ni muhimu hasa ambapo kuna maeneo ya kijivu kama vile malipo ya kuwezesha, wakati malipo kama hayo yanafanywa ili kuharakisha kazi za kawaida za serikali, zinaweza kuwa ngumu kutofautisha na rushwa na zinaweza kutazamwa kwa njia nyembamba sana na wasimamizi. Kampuni ya Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation iligundua jambo hilo wakati SEC ilipogundua hivi karibuni kwamba malipo ya kampuni yao ya India kujaribu kuzuia ukaguzi wa kodi mara kwa mara, kati ya mambo mengine, yalifanywa ili kuathiri matokeo na kama vile walikuwa rushwa. Ili kuepuka kuchanganyikiwa, makampuni mengi, tu kuruhusu malipo ya kurahisisha. Ingawa kuepuka ukiukaji wa FCPA inaweza kuwa ngumu, kwa makampuni kufanya biashara nchini India inaweza kuwa hata changamoto zaidi. Ili kufanikiwa katika kuepuka ukiukaji wa FCPA, kampuni zinapaswa kutekeleza utamaduni wa kampuni nzima wa kufuata na bidii ya lazima, mazoea ya ukaguzi wa ndani, mafunzo na elimu, na sera na taratibu wazi. Moja ya pointi muhimu ni kuweka utamaduni sahihi na sauti kutoka juu. Kampuni zenye ufanisi mkubwa hushiriki kanuni zao za mwenendo na sera za kufuata kwa wingi na wauzaji na wateja. Ni muhimu kwamba makampuni kuchukua hatua za kuhakikisha kwamba (biashara) washirika wao ni kufanya kazi katika mtindo safi. Kwa kuongezea, vyeti kutoka kwa washirika wote kwamba watatii mahitaji ya FCPA lazima vichukuliwe. "Hizi ni vitu ambavyo kampuni zinaweza na zinapaswa kufanya, na ikiwa zinapokea pushback kutoka kwa mtu wa tatu, hiyo inapaswa kuwa bendera nyekundu kubwa juu ya kuendelea na uhusiano huo. """ "Kama ilivyo kwa kampuni za umma, Transparency International India inawahimiza makampuni ya sekta ya umma kusaini mkataba wa uadilifu kabla ya kutoa zabuni kwa mikataba ya serikali, ambapo washiriki wote, ikiwa ni pamoja na serikali, wanakubaliana kutokubali au kutoa rushwa au kuteseka adhabu ikiwa watafanya hivyo. """ Kampuni inaposhuku au kugundua ukiukaji wa FCPA, majibu yake yanaweza kuwa muhimu katika kuzuia makosa ya mara kwa mara. Uongozi unapaswa kuzingatia kwa uangalifu kila hali, ikiwa ni pamoja na kuwaomba watu waondoke shirika au kumaliza mahusiano fulani na wauzaji. Hizi ni aina ya vitendo ambavyo hufanya wafanyikazi, wauzaji, na wateja waelewe kwamba una uzito juu ya kufuata sera na taratibu za shirika na kwamba unaishi kwa kanuni yake ya mwenendo. Anurag Gupta