Advertisement

Inspirations from the US’ Increasingly Aggressive Enforcement

  • Lianlian Liu
Chapter

Abstract

The enforcement of the OECD Anti-bribery Convention is not only characterized by many signatories’ “ineffective enforcement” but also by a few signatories’ “zealous enforcement.” Given that the standard rational-choice account cannot fully explain the developmental reality in leading jurisdictions, this chapter takes the US as an example and explores how variation in the institutional context in the US in past decades explains variation in the US’ efforts on transnational bribery regulation.

The starting point of this study is an awareness that the enforcement of the FCPA by the US does not result from any constructed “behavior” of a “state actor” but is embodied in multiple domestic agencies’ independent performance of their statutory duties. Then this study reviews the developmental trend of the enforcement efforts of two major enforcing agencies (i.e., the SEC and the DOJ) and finds that changes in their enforcing efforts result from their unchanging adherence to their own predefined missions in an evolving institutional context. Their enforcing efforts are a function of the extent to which their duties of enforcing the FCPA have been gradually incorporated into their central missions over time. The US’ experience has at least two inspirations for understanding the global trend of transnational bribery regulation: first, transnational bribery regulation results from the independent performance of duties of domestic enforcing agencies in an evolving context but not rational choices of an anthropomorphized “state actor” at specific moments. Second, the US’ increasingly aggressive enforcement of the FCPA can create a positive regulatory competition between the US and other signatories which makes other signatories to have no choice but to regulate transnational bribery more faithfully so as to prevent their companies from enforcement actions under the FCPA.

Keywords

FCPA SEC DOJ the US’ increasingly aggressive enforcement 

References

  1. Adler, Tamara. 1982. Amending the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977: A Step toward Clarification and Consolidation. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 73 (4): 1740–1773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkins, Paul S., and Bradley J. Bondi. 2008. Evaluating the Mission: A Critical Review of the History and Evolution of the SEC Enforcement Program. Fordham Journal of Corporate and Financial Law 13 (3): 367–417.Google Scholar
  3. Beck, Paul J., Michael W. Maher, and Adrain E. Tschoegl. 1991. The Impact of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act on US Exports. Managerial and Decision Economics 12 (4): 295–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black, Barbara. 2012. SEC and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: Fighting Global Corruption is Not Part of the SEC’s Mission. Ohio State Law Journal 73 (5): 1093–1119.Google Scholar
  5. Blanchard, Oliver Jean. 1987. Reaganomics. Economic Policy 2 (5): 15–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blume, Robert C., and J. Taylor McConkie. 2007. Navigating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: The Increasing Cost of Overseas Bribery. The Colorado Lawyer 36 (8): 91–100.Google Scholar
  7. Brewster, Rachel. 2010. Stepping Stone or Stumbling Block: Incrementalism and National Climate Change Legislation. Yale Law and Policy Review 28: 245–312.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, H. Lowell. 2001. Extraterritorial Jurisdiction under the 1998 Amendments to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: Does the Government’s Reach Now Exceed Its Grasp? North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation 26 (2): 239.Google Scholar
  9. Carrington, Paul D. 2009. Enforcing International Corrupt Practices Law. Michigan Journal of International Law 32 (129): 129–164.Google Scholar
  10. Chaikin, David. 1997. Extraterritoriality and the Criminalization of Foreign Bribes. In Corruption: The Enemy within Hague, ed. Barry Rider. Boston: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  11. Clinton, William J. 1998. Statement on Signing the International Anti-Bribery and Fair-Competition Act of 1998. 10 November, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 34 (46): 2290.Google Scholar
  12. Coffee, John C., Jr. 2002. Racing Towards the Top?: The Impact of Cross-Listings and Stock Market Competition on International Corporate Governance. Columbia Law Review 102: 1757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Copeland, Michael, and Robert F. Scott. 1999. Efforts to Combat Transnational Bribery: Problems with and Alternatives to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Journal of Security Administration 22 (1): 41–57.Google Scholar
  14. Cox, Christopher. 2008. The Importance of International Enforcement Cooperation in Today’s Markets, 7 November 2008. Accessed May 14, 2014. https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/2008/spch110708cc.htm.
  15. Davis, Kevin E. 2002. Self-Interest and Altruism in the Deterrence of Transnational Bribery. American Law and Economics Review 4 (2): 314–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ———. 2012. Why Does the United States Regulate Foreign Bribery: Moralism, Self-Interest, or Altruism? NYU Annual Survey of American Law 67 (3): 497–511.Google Scholar
  17. Deming, Stuart H. 2005. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the New International Norms. Chicago: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
  18. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. Pub. L. 111–203, H.R. 4173 (21 July 2010).Google Scholar
  19. Donald, David C. 2005. Shareholder Voice and Its Opponents. The Journal of Corporate Law Studies 5 (2): 305–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Evans, John R. 1983. Developments in the Regulation of Accounting and Financial Disclosure under the Federal Securities Acts. Address in Conference on New Trends in Accounting and Financial Reporting Machinery and Allied Products Institute Arlington, Virginia, 9 June 1983.Google Scholar
  21. Goelzer, Daniel L. 1979. The Accounting Provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act—The Federalization of Corporate Recording Recordkeeping and Internal Control. The Journal of Corporation Law 5: 1–54.Google Scholar
  22. Hall, Christopher L. 1994. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: A Competitive Disadvantage, But for How Long? Tulane Journal of International and Company Law 2: 289–316.Google Scholar
  23. Hallman, Ben. 2012. SEC Enforcement Chief Defends Record under Fire from Rakoff, Critics. Huffington Post, 18 January. Accessed May 14, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/sec-mounts-defense-of-enforcement_n_1205318.html.
  24. Hansberry, Heidi L. 2012. In Spite of Its Good Intentions, the Dodd-Frank Act has Created an FCPA Monster. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 102 (1): 195–226.Google Scholar
  25. Heimann, Fritz, Gillian Dell, and Kelly McCarthy. 2011. Transparency International Progress Report 2011 on Enforcement of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention (May 2011).Google Scholar
  26. Homey, James, and Richard Kogan. 2006. Reinstatement of Pay-As-You-Go is a Welcome Step toward Fiscal Responsibility. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 20 December 2006. Accessed May 13, 2014. http://www.cbpp.org/files/12-20-06bud.pdf.
  27. International Anti-Bribery and Fair Competition Act of 1998. Pub. L. 105-366, 112 Stat. 3302.Google Scholar
  28. Katz, Jonathan G. 2010. Reviewing the SEC, Reinvigorating the SEC. University of Pittsburgh Law Review 71: 489–516.Google Scholar
  29. Koehler, Mike. 2012. The Story of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Ohio State Law Journal 73 (5): 929–1013.Google Scholar
  30. LeVine, Victor T. 1989. Transnational Aspects of Political Corruption. In Political Corruption: A Handbook, ed. Arnold J. Heidenheimer and Michael Johnston. London: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Lin, Ping, et al. 2000. The US Antitrust System and Recent Trends in Antitrust Enforcement. Journal of Economic Surveys 14 (3): 255–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Magee, Stephen P., et al. 1989. Black Hole Tariffs and Endogenous Policy Theory: Political Economy in General Equilibrium. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Magnuson, William. 2013. International Corporate Bribery and Unilateral Enforcement. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 51: 360–417.Google Scholar
  34. Marinaccio, Charles L. 1982. S. 708: An Amended Version of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce 9 (2): 345–353.Google Scholar
  35. Middlemiss, Arthur D., and Nishi Gupta. 2007. US Interagency Law Enforcement Cooperation since September 11, 2001: Improvements and Results. Journal of Financial Crime 14 (2): 138–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mosley, Layna, and Saika Uno. 2007. Racing to the Bottom or Climbing to the Top? Comparative Political Studies 40 (8): 923–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. North, Douglass C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Notes. 1972. The History and Development of Qui Tam. Washington University Law Review 1: 81–115.Google Scholar
  39. OECD. 1997. Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, S. TREATY DOC. NO. 105-43, 37 I.L. M. 1 (21 December 1997).Google Scholar
  40. ———. 2004. Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention: Report on the United States 2003 (1 September 2004).Google Scholar
  41. ———. 2007. Introduction. In The OECD Convention on Bribery: A Commentary, ed. Mark Pieth et al. New York: Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
  42. Pieth, Mark, et al., eds. 2007. The OECD Convention on Bribery: A Commentary. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Pitt, Harvey L., and Karen L. Shapiro. 1990. Securities Regulation by Enforcement: A Look Ahead at the next Decade. Yale Journal on Regulation 7: 149.Google Scholar
  44. Prentice, Robert A. 2006. The Inevitability of a Strong SEC. Cornell Law Review 91: 775–840.Google Scholar
  45. Riesenberg, Thomas L. 2001. Trying to Hear the Whistle Blowing: The Widely Misunderstood “Illegal Act” Reporting Requirements of Exchange Act Section 10A. The Business Lawyer 56 (4): 1417–1459.Google Scholar
  46. Rubin, Seymour J. 1976. United States: Report of the Securities and Exchange Commission on Questionable and Illegal Corporate Payments and Practices. American Society of International Law 15 (3): 618–633.Google Scholar
  47. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Public Law 107-204, 116 STAT. 745 (30 July 2002).Google Scholar
  48. Scammell, Henry. 2004. Giantkillers: The Team and the Law that Help Whistle-Blowers Recover America’s Stolen Billions. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.Google Scholar
  49. Schmidt, Timothy W. 2009. Sweetening the Deal: Strengthening Transnational Bribery Laws through Standard International Corporate Auditing Guidelines. Minnesota Law Review 93: 1120–1145.Google Scholar
  50. Schmonsees, Robert J. 2005. Escaping the Black Hole: Minimizing the Damage from the Marketing-Sales Disconnect. Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western.Google Scholar
  51. SEC Report on Questionable and Illegal Corporate Payments and Practices (2 May 1976). Accessed April 26, 2014. http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/fcpa/sec-report-questionable-illegal-corporate-payments-practices-1976.pdf.
  52. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, ch. 404, title I, § 1, 48 Stat. 881 (6 June 1934) (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 78a. et seq 2012).Google Scholar
  53. Solow, Robert. 1987. The Conservative Revolution: A Roundtable Discussion. Economic Policy 2 (5): 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Spalding, A.D., Jr., and A. Reinstein. 1995. The Audit Committee’s Role Regarding the Provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Journal of Business Strategies 12 (1): 23–35. Google Scholar
  55. Sporkin, Stanley. 1997. The Worldwide Banning of Schmiergeld: A Look at the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act on Its Twentieth Birthday. Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business 18: 269–281.Google Scholar
  56. Stengle, Linda L. 2008. Rewarding Integrity: The Struggle to Protect Decentralized Fraud Enforcement through the Public Disclosure Bar of the False Claims Act. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 33: 471–510.Google Scholar
  57. Tarullo, Daniel K. 2004. The Limits of Institutional Design: Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. Virginia Journal of International Law 44 (3): 665–710.Google Scholar
  58. Thomas, Cortney C. 2010. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: A Decade of Rapid Expansion Explained, Defended, and Justified. The Review of Litigation 29 (2): 439–470.Google Scholar
  59. Urofsky, Philip, et al. 2012. How Should We Measure the Effectiveness of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act? Don’t Break What Isn’t Broken—The Fallacies of Reform. Ohio State Law Journal 73 (5): 1145–1179.Google Scholar
  60. USDOJ and SEC. 2012. A Resource Guide to the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (2012). Accessed July 6, 2014. http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/guide.pdf.
  61. USGAO Report to the Congress: Impact of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act on US Business, AFMD-81-34 (4 March 1981).Google Scholar
  62. Wallace, Cynthia Day. 2002. The Multinational Enterprise and Legal Control: Host State Sovereignty in an Era of Economic Globalization. 2nd ed. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  63. Weingast, Barry. 1995. The Economic Role of Political Institutions: Market-Preserving Federalism and Economic Development. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 11: 1–31.Google Scholar
  64. Williams, Harold M. 1981. The Accounting Provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: An Analysis. 13 January 1981. Accessed May 5, 2014. http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/1981/011381williams.pdf.
  65. Zhao, Jian. 2006. Nian Yu Xiao Ying (“The Catfish Effect”). Beijing: China Textile Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lianlian Liu
    • 1
  1. 1.Peking UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations