Hey - did you know if you click on the title of a thread it will take you to the first unread post since you last visited that thread?
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
Offline
-
Hey Guest!
British Car Forum has been supporting enthusiasts for over 25 years by providing a great place to share our love for British cars. You can support our efforts by upgrading your membership for less than the dues of most car clubs. There are some perks with a member upgrade!**Upgrade Now**
(PS: Upgraded members don't see this banner, nor will you see the Google ads that appear on the site.)
Mercedes Benz have been naughty....
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
Share this page
G
Guest
Guest
Guest
Offline
Since when do we try and fine companies based in other countries that commit "offenses" not on our soil? This is why other countries hate us. We need to mind our own business.
V
vagt6
Guest
Guest
Offline
Justice under law should not be confined by political or physical boundaries.
M-B got what they deserved, apparently. I'm sure this practice is commonplace, but sadly, M-B got CAUGHT.
M-B got what they deserved, apparently. I'm sure this practice is commonplace, but sadly, M-B got CAUGHT.
kellysguy said:
For most of this period, it was Daimler Chrysler corporation, with significant assets and partial ownership in the US. There is no reason why they shouldn't have to play by the same rules as any other company with significant business interests in the US.
BTW, I work for a subsidiary of a large American firm, and we (all employees worldwide) are required to attend a yearly course regarding ethical business practice.
MadRiver
Jedi Knight
Offline
Well gang, I can actually weigh in on this one with some degree of expertise. I'm a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act specialist -- I've been practicing in the area for sixteen years, and our firm specializes in advising companies on FCPA compliance and investigations.
70Herlad is right, but It's actually even easier than that. The FCPA clearly and unambiguously applies, among other things, to all companies that have shares traded on U.S. exchanges. This is regardless of where the company is based or headquartered. When Daimler owned Chrysler, they had shares traded on a U.S. exchange, and were therefore fully subject to the FCPA to the same extent as any public company organized in the United States, and make no mistake, there is little doubt that they were unaware of that fact when they acquired Chrysler.
I won't bore you with all of the intricate ins and outs of FCPA compliance, but suffice it to say, it isn't a novel legal theory for MB to have faced liability under the FCPA for activities that took place when it had shares traded on a U.S. exchange. The rules are quite clear -- if you wish to issue stock on a public exchange in the United States, you are expressly agreeing to subject yourself to applicable U.S. laws.
I'm also going to climb on my anti-corruption soapbox for a brief moment. All U.S. companies and U.S. nationals (whether public or otherwise) are subject to the FCPA, which in a nutshell, prohibits companies from paying bribes to foreign government officials to get business. The FCPA was enacted in 1977, and at that time, the U.S. became the only country in the entire world to prohibit its companies from bribing foreign governments. This remained the case until 1998, when we essentially bullied our major trading partners to sign an international convention pursuant to which they agreed to adopt their own laws banning the practice for their own companies. Since that time, our allies have been slow to enforce their laws on the subject, but they're getting better. China and India, of course, have no such laws.
We can debate whether bribery of foreign officials is just the way the world is, and we can also debate whether we should impose our own morals on others. But after sixteen years of practicing in the area, I can say with confidence and authority that:
1. Foreign officials that sell their country's natural resources to companies that pay them bribes perpetuate poverty in their own countries, which directly contributes to political instability and overwhelming social problems. Just look at Equitorial Guinea. The country has more oil per capita than almost everywhere else in the world. But because it's president gave the oil away to the companies who paid him bribes, rather than getting a good price for his people, the place remains mired in poverty and disease.
2. Corruption to obtain business uses the same machinery to move money as terrorism and drugs. If we allow big grown up companies to play in this space, we simply make it easer for Al Quaeda.
3. Corruption also supports bad people who want to do bad things. One of the things that MB got in trouble for was paying bribes to Saddam Hussein's government to sell trucks. We can debate whether deposing Saddam was a good idea, but I don't think its debatable that he wasn't a very sweet fellow. Under the UN's oil for food program, Iraq was allowed to sell oil and deposit the funds in an account controlled by the UN in New York. They could then use that account, with UN approval, to buy products for humanitarian purposes (food, medicine, etc.) and also equipment needed in the oil business (oil field equipment, trucks, etc.). The purpose of the program was to allow the Iraqi government to sell oil and use the funds for legitimate purposes, rather than allowing Saddam to use the funds to cause trouble. What many companies did was also separately pay bribes to Iraqi government officials under the table and outside the UN program. That money was used to buy weapons and torture Iraqi citizens and who knows what else.
I could go on and on, but at the end of the day, they knew when they did it that it was illegal and they could get in trouble here for it.
70herald said:
70Herlad is right, but It's actually even easier than that. The FCPA clearly and unambiguously applies, among other things, to all companies that have shares traded on U.S. exchanges. This is regardless of where the company is based or headquartered. When Daimler owned Chrysler, they had shares traded on a U.S. exchange, and were therefore fully subject to the FCPA to the same extent as any public company organized in the United States, and make no mistake, there is little doubt that they were unaware of that fact when they acquired Chrysler.
I won't bore you with all of the intricate ins and outs of FCPA compliance, but suffice it to say, it isn't a novel legal theory for MB to have faced liability under the FCPA for activities that took place when it had shares traded on a U.S. exchange. The rules are quite clear -- if you wish to issue stock on a public exchange in the United States, you are expressly agreeing to subject yourself to applicable U.S. laws.
I'm also going to climb on my anti-corruption soapbox for a brief moment. All U.S. companies and U.S. nationals (whether public or otherwise) are subject to the FCPA, which in a nutshell, prohibits companies from paying bribes to foreign government officials to get business. The FCPA was enacted in 1977, and at that time, the U.S. became the only country in the entire world to prohibit its companies from bribing foreign governments. This remained the case until 1998, when we essentially bullied our major trading partners to sign an international convention pursuant to which they agreed to adopt their own laws banning the practice for their own companies. Since that time, our allies have been slow to enforce their laws on the subject, but they're getting better. China and India, of course, have no such laws.
We can debate whether bribery of foreign officials is just the way the world is, and we can also debate whether we should impose our own morals on others. But after sixteen years of practicing in the area, I can say with confidence and authority that:
1. Foreign officials that sell their country's natural resources to companies that pay them bribes perpetuate poverty in their own countries, which directly contributes to political instability and overwhelming social problems. Just look at Equitorial Guinea. The country has more oil per capita than almost everywhere else in the world. But because it's president gave the oil away to the companies who paid him bribes, rather than getting a good price for his people, the place remains mired in poverty and disease.
2. Corruption to obtain business uses the same machinery to move money as terrorism and drugs. If we allow big grown up companies to play in this space, we simply make it easer for Al Quaeda.
3. Corruption also supports bad people who want to do bad things. One of the things that MB got in trouble for was paying bribes to Saddam Hussein's government to sell trucks. We can debate whether deposing Saddam was a good idea, but I don't think its debatable that he wasn't a very sweet fellow. Under the UN's oil for food program, Iraq was allowed to sell oil and deposit the funds in an account controlled by the UN in New York. They could then use that account, with UN approval, to buy products for humanitarian purposes (food, medicine, etc.) and also equipment needed in the oil business (oil field equipment, trucks, etc.). The purpose of the program was to allow the Iraqi government to sell oil and use the funds for legitimate purposes, rather than allowing Saddam to use the funds to cause trouble. What many companies did was also separately pay bribes to Iraqi government officials under the table and outside the UN program. That money was used to buy weapons and torture Iraqi citizens and who knows what else.
I could go on and on, but at the end of the day, they knew when they did it that it was illegal and they could get in trouble here for it.
V
vagt6
Guest
Guest
Offline
Bill, that's very interesting, thank you for posting it.
Ya' never know what you'll learn on the BCF . . .
Ya' never know what you'll learn on the BCF . . .
bgbassplyr
Darth Vader
Offline
Ya pays yer money, ya takes yer chances. And sometimes the bear eats ya.
G
Guest
Guest
Guest
Offline
I'm not pro-corruption, I just think we overstep our boundries sometimes and allot folks in the international community don't like it. I'll refrain from any further thoughts as it may take an unwanted turn.
