評論
打印
Business
商業報道
Bribery abroad
海外行賄
A tale of two laws
兩部法律的故事
America's anti-corruption law deters foreign investment. Britain's is smarter
美國的反貪腐法讓企業對海外投資望而卻步，而英國的則更為明智
BRIBING foreign officials is wrong,
向外國官員行賄是不對的。
but not everything governments do to prevent it is wise or proportional.
但并非政府所做的所有防范行賄的措施都是明智或能產生對應成效的。
Firms are increasingly fed up with the way America's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is written and applied.
企業對美國的海外反腐法厭倦是與日俱增，不僅僅因為它的內容，還因為它的執行方式。
The law was passed in 1977, but recent years have seen a spike in enforcement, from five actions in 2004 to 74 in 2010.
該法案于1977年通過，然而最近幾年執行次數增長迅速，從2004年的5次增長到2010年的74次。
Five of the ten biggest settlements ever were last year, including a $400m fine against BAE Systems,
十大處罰中有五個發生于去年，
a British defence contractor, and a $365m fine against ENI, an Italian oil firm.
其中包括對英國國防承包商BAE系統的處罰以及意大利石油公司ENI的處罰。
On August 31st the Wall Street Journal reported that the Department of Justice has been investigating Oracle,
八月31日《華爾街日報》報道稱司法部調查一個數據庫軟件公司Oracle，
a database-software company, for a year.
已經一年了。
Unusually, Oracle has said nothing about the investigation. Ethisphere, a promoter of corporate responsibility,
反常的是，Oracle對這次調查只字不提。
rated Oracle one of the world's most ethical companies in 2009.
企業責任提倡人Ethisphere認為Oracle是2009年全球最有道德責任感的企業之一。
Mike Koehler, a law professor at Butler University in Indiana,
印第安納州Butler大學的某法律專家Mike Koehler寫道，
writes that General Electric, HP, AstraZeneca and others have all been among Ethisphere's World's Most Ethical while settling FCPA prosecutions or under investigation.
曾位列Ethisphere的全球最具道德責任感企業名單上的General Electric, HP, AstraZeneca等企業都被FCPA的指控過或者受到調查。
An FCPA action is an ordeal.
被FCPA指控的話，后果很慘痛。
Few firms dare risk going to court—only two cases against corporations have ever resulted in completed trials.
很少企業敢冒險上法庭—企業被告的案例中只有兩個結案了。
The vast majority of cases are settled, which can take years.
很多案子要用上幾年時間才能結案。
Listed companies must satisfy not only the Department of Justice,
上市公司不僅要達到司法部的要求，
but also the Securities and Exchange Commission, which enforces the FCPA provisions requiring accurate records of all business dealings.
還要滿足證券和交易委員會的要求，而這就使得FCPA要具備所有企業的交易記錄。
Before the department and the commission will sign off on a settlement,
在司法部和該委員會做出最終決定之前，
the company must satisfy them that the rest of its operations are squeaky clean.
企業必須讓他們相信公司的其它運作也是沒有貓膩的。
Narrow investigations can mutate into broad ones that cost tens of millions of dollars.
調查不充分會使案情變得更大，為此將付出成千億美元。
And bosses can be sent to prison for up to 20 years if their companies fall foul of the FCPA.
如果企業違反了FCPA的規定其老板的最高可被判刑20年。
In theory, they could be jailed because a staff member at a foreign subsidiary bribed an official without their knowledge.
理論上，即使是在他們不知情的情況下，如果其駐外員工向官員行賄的話，他們也可被判入獄。
In some cases, the law insists that directors ought to know about dodgy goings-on, even if they do not.
某些情況下，法律堅持認為管理者應該知道這些小動作—即使有時候他們確實不知情。
This is a hefty deterrent to doing business in poor countries, some studies have found.
有研究發現，這成了企業進駐窮國的極大障礙。
Andy Spalding, a law professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law,
芝加哥肯特法學院的一名法律專家Andy Spalding
likens the way the FCPA is enforced to de facto sanctions on countries where corruption is rife.
將FCPA的做法類比為貪腐盛行的國家的事實判決。
A study by KPMG, a consultancy,
某顧問公司KPMG做了一份研究表明，
found that a third of British and a quarter of American companies would simply steer clear of corruption-prone countries to avoid the risk of being prosecuted.
三分之一的英國公司和四分之一的美國公司會簡單地選擇不去那些貪腐盛行的國家做生意，從而避免被起訴。
Firms from less fussy places, such as China, will happily fill the gap.
而處于要求不那么嚴格的國家的企業則很樂意填補這個空白。
The US Chamber of Commerce, a business lobby, says the FCPA also deters foreign mergers and acquisitions.
商業游說團—美國商會—認為FCPA將外資并購企業也嚇跑了，
A firm inherits the sins of a company it buys, even if it has done reasonable due diligence, the chamber says.
它認為即使一個企業已經做了法律盡職調查，但還是要承擔它所并購的企業的罪行。
To avoid this risk, it must conduct the equivalent of a vast internal investigation, says the chamber.
為了避免這種危險，該企業必須進行一次大范圍的內部調查，該商會說道。
Many firms find it simpler to stay at home.
于是很多企業覺得留在國內發展要簡單得多。
A new British anti-bribery law, passed in 2010, appears to have been better crafted.
英國2010年通過的反賄賂法似乎更勝一籌。
The Bribery Act is broad and tough.
該《賄賂法》涉及范圍更廣，
It covers bribery within Britain as well as abroad.
刑法也更重：其處罰對象既包括國內也包括國外。
In contrast to the FCPA, it makes no exception for small facilitation payments to speed up routine business such as customs checks or visas.
相較FCPA，它連便利支付—能加速一些類似海關檢查或者簽證等日常業務的支付方式—也不放過。
But it is fair, too.
然而它也是公平的。
Unlike the FCPA,
與FCPA不同的是，
it has a compliance defence that allows a company to avoid the harshest penalties if the wrongdoer is a junior employee and the firm otherwise has a strict anti-bribery policy which is clear to all employees and effectively administered. One rogue employee can't easily cause a crippling probe into an otherwise blameless company.
它允許遵守式合規性保護，也就是說，如果涉事員工是未成年人或者該企業有嚴格的反賄賂規定，并且讓所有員工都知曉這項規定從而使其得到有效執行，那么該企業可以避開最嚴酷的懲罰。一個按規矩做事的企業不會如此輕易地讓一兩位明知故犯的員工給毀了。
America's Department of Justice sees no need for such safeguards.
而美國司法部認為這樣的防范是多余的。
And since few cases go to trial, judges have given little guidance as to what the FCPA's bewildering text actually means.
由于很少案子受到審訊，法官也沒有對FCPA那些令人迷惑的條款做出太多指示。
So, for now, it means whatever an aggressive prosecutor says it does.
因此，就目前為止，這些條款的含義，全憑膽大的起訴人如何作出解讀。
