Words: 668
What are the differences between the provisions of the United States Foreign Corrupt Practice Act and the United Kingdom Bribery Act? The United Kingdom Bribery Act was passed on 8 April 2010 and became effective on 1 July 2011. Until recently, international anti-corruption enforcement has been largely dominated by the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 1977.
The minima difference between he (APPC) and the (CUBA) is as follows: Both the Bribery Act and the APPC indicate it is a crime to bribe foreign (public) officials. Under the (CUBA) “foreign public official” easier defined more narrowly than under the APPC but still include anyone who holds a foreign legislative or judicial position. The APPC does not cover bribery on a private level, unlike the Bribery Act, although such conduct can be caught under other US legislation.
The APPC only covers active bribery, in contrast, the (CUBA) prohibits both active and passive bribery. The (CUBA) creates a strict liability corporate offence for failure to prevent bribery (as opposed to vicarious liability) subject to being able to establish that a company has “adequate procedures”. Under the APPC, however, a company subject to US jurisdiction can be held vicariously liable for acts of its employees and agents. The UK offence extends to acts of “associated persons” which means anyone who performs services for or on behalf of the commercial organization.
An individual found to have committed an offence under the (CUBA) is liable to imprisonment of up to ten years and/or to an unlimited fine. A company found guilty is subject to an unlimited fine. For offences committed under the APPC an individual can be fined up to US$250,OHO per violation and may also be given up to five years imprisonment. A company guilty under the APPC is liable for a fine of up to per violation (Eastward & Quinine 2011). 2) Check for more recent situation where companies have been accused of violating the APPC.
Why do you think these companies choose to engage in bribery? Pfizer Inc. Was charged by The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on August 7th 201 2, with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (APPC) when its subsidiaries bribed doctors and other health care professionals employed by foreign governments in order to win business. Evidence suggested that Pfizer Inc. Made improper payments to foreign officials to obtain regulatory and formula approvals, sales, and increased prescriptions for the company’s pharmaceutical products.
They tried to conceal the bribery by improperly recording the transactions in accounting records as legitimate expenses for promotional activities, marketing, training, travel and entertainment, clinical trials, freight, conferences, and advertising (“Press Release: SEC Charges Pfizer with APPC Violations I’, 2012). I think these companies choose to engage in bribery because it can mean billions of dollars in profit or loss in the organization and there is always personal gain with all that are involved in the bribery. ) Why is it so difficult to determine when a minor gift, entertainment or incentive constitute a bribe? Gifts and entertainment are familiar in business practices and customer relations worldwide. But they can raise conflict-of-interest problems and can border on bribery. Knowing where to draw the line is not easy. One method is to know what the organization’s policy and procedures are related to receiving minor gift, entertainment or incentive and then making a moral and ethical choice.
I have found that in nursing practice, this can be a difficult decision. Sharing a personal experience, family members have often return with a gift expressing their appreciation for taking care of their loved ones, I always respond with the same answer, “Thank you, I am doing my job,” and I cannot accept a gift based on policy of the facility, however a thank you can be just as meaningful as an incentive, as I often receive a “Thank You for your service” from different persons that I meet. Those words alone are more meaningful to me than money.