n Foreign Corruption Practise Case Analysis 2022

RUNNING HEAD: FOREIGN CORRUPTION PRACTICES
Foreign Corruption Practices
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1
FOREIGN CORRUPTION PRACTICES
Response to Case 1:
Memorandum
To: The CEO of the Company
From:
Date:
Re: Discussion regarding the Foreign Corruption Practices which came to be known as the risk
factor of the world for bribery.
Purpose:
The purpose of this memorandum is to mention the CEO of the Company, whether the
series of payments made by the company are bribes or not. This can be explained by discussing
the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
Summary:
In this memo, a brief discussion has been done about the bribery system and its
consequences. In furtherance, advice has been provided to the CEO of the company to clear the
facts of the payments made by the company to various individuals are bribes or actual payments.
Issue:
The presentation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in 1977 is enforced due to
widespread bribery in the U.S and other foreign companies. Congress enacted this Act for the
termination of corruption practices and also to initiate an honest trade to maintain the dignity and
integrity of the market in the field of corporate business. Corruption is an issue faced by
companies all over the world. In the last few decades, since the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
has been enforced, the extension of commercial bribery has become distinct, and its consequence
hampers the economic market.
Commercial bribery is a type of business that is bad in the eye of law. In this present
system of free-market, the sale of goods should be based on service, quality and price. In the

2
FOREIGN CORRUPTION PRACTICES
basic tenet commercial bribery is a fundamental destructive business. Commercial bribery of
officials in foreign places happens for assistance to corporations for the development of the
business. The foreign commercial bribery hampers the stability of foreign trade. It affects the
growth of public resources in the field of essential priorities such as infrastructure, education and
health. It weakens the public accountability and democratic values and declines the rule of legal
procedures.
Issuers- 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1:
Section 30 A of the Securities Exchange Act 1934, which is stated at 15 U.S.C.§ 78dd-1,
explains the provision of anti-bribery leading the issuer. An organisation is an “issuer” under the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act if it contains a class of safeties or securities empanelled under
section 12 of the Exchange Act or is essential to a periodic filing and several other reports along
with SEC under section 15(d) of the Exchange Act. As per 31st December 2011, there are 965
companies listed companies registered with SEC. The employees, directors, agents and officers
acting for an issuer and any other conspiracies can be impeached under the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act.
Internal Distress—15 U.S.C. § 78dd-2:
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act spreads over the “domestic concerns”. The actual
meaning of domestic concern is a person who can be a resident, national and citizen of any
country or any other institution, association, joint-stock company, partnership, unincorporated
organization, business trust or sole proprietorship that can be arranged under the law of any
particular country or its place of business is in that particular country.
Provincial Jurisdiction—15 U.S.C. § 78dd-3:
There are certain provisions by FCPA1 that applies to several entities or foreign nationals
that are never a domestic concern nor an issuer. From the year 1998, the provisions under FCPA
has enforced to several foreign individuals and entities those who are non-issuer through an
agent or directly involve in any other activities according to the act because of any corrupt
payment. Along with these individuals, the agents, employees, stockholders and directors can be
subjected to the anti-bribery prohibitions of the FCPA.
1 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

3
FOREIGN CORRUPTION PRACTICES
The FCPA2 prohibits the payments that are made through third parties or intermediaries
and are considered as corrupted payments. The corrupted payments can be defined as the
payments given to any individual with knowledge of that portion of the money, or the value will
be promised, offered or given indirectly or directly.
Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co.- In this case, the company is a provider of services related
to the German country. It works in the field of providing health care to individuals suffering
from a failure of the kidney. The company has agreed to pay $231 to SEC and Justice department
to settle the violations done by them against the rule of FCPA.
Advice:
(1) Payment of $50 to the electric expert to hook the line for Family’s apartment will be
considered as a bribe as the lineman cannot provide a document of receipt against the
payment for hooking up the line.
(2) The contribution to the pastor stated as equivalent to tuition fees for one year is a bribe it
cannot be considered as a charitable donation as the pastor will help in enrolling the student
against the contribution paid.
(3) Providing a red wine to the inspector is considered as a bribe as the building inspector will
approve the newly constructed building since the building is not appropriately built according
to the norms. So the inspector has been bribed with wine on account of granting the building
as perfect without any objection.
(4) A gift to the commissioner of the county as a single bottle of wine is not a bribe as it was
gifted to congratulate him on the event of the first childbirth and not for any illegal or
irrelevant activities.
(5) All the expense for the trip paid to the chief national agency for the department of the
environment for travelling to plant and his accommodation in a four star hotel is considered
as a bribe as he was arranged to stay in a star rated hotel which can be considered as
extravagance in relation to the accommodation provided to the chief of the environmental
agency.
Response to Case 2:
2 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act