FACULTYTALK Archives

November 2005

FACULTYTALK@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Albert D. Spalding, Jr." <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
Date:
Wed, 2 Nov 2005 11:04:19 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (59 lines)
And then there is the money.  More specifically, the tax deduction (or 
lack thereof).
Irrespective of prosecution under the securities laws. Internal Revenue 
Code section 162 disallows the deductibility of bribes on a U.S. income 
tax return, including, specifically, bribes in violation of the FCPA no 
matter where the bribes took place.

Albert Spalding

Peter W. Schroth wrote:

> There was Dooley v. United Technologies Corp., 803 F. Supp. 428, 440
> (D.D.C. 1992), but the 1998 amendments go even further.  In its current
> form, the FCPA purports to reach foreigners who have virtually any sort
> of contact with the United States in furtherance of a violation of the
> act and U.S. nationals who do anything in furtherance of such a
> violation anywhere in the world.  But don't you think this raises some
> due process problems, such as minimum contacts (International Shoe Co.
> v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945), Burger King Corp. v.
> Rudzewick, 471 U.S. 462, 474 (1985)) and reasonable anticipation of
> being haled into court in the U.S. (World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v.
> Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980))?  Article 5 of the OECD Convention
> might help a little as to absent nationals, but not absent non-nationals.
>
> As to the practicalities of physical control over the defendants,
> however, the government can just hire some Mexicans to kidnap them and
> bring them back as far as El Paso.  Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 124 S.Ct.
> 2739, 2761-62 (2004).
>
> Peter W. Schroth
>
>
>
> Robert Bird wrote:
>
>> A student asked me a question in class about the FCPA which I cannot
>> definitively answer.
>>
>> The FCPA applies to U.S. companies bribing abroad and an amendment
>> extends the FCPA to Non-U.S. citizens acting in the United States.  Is a
>> foreign agent (say, a Mexican national) who bribes a Mexican official on
>> behalf of a U.S. firm in Mexico liabile under the FCPA?  Assume that the
>> Mexican national never enters the United States.  Also, would there be a
>> jurisdictional problem with prosecuting the Mexican agent?
>>
>> Thanks in advance for you help,
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> Robert C. Bird
>> Assistant Professor
>> University of Connecticut
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2