The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) was established in 1977 by Congress to ensure that all American businesspeople and companies were using ethical behavior when participating in international sales and contracts. At the time, companies based out of other countries would often bribe government officials to ensure that they received preferential treatment in any contracts they may enter with another business entity or a consumer and American companies and businesspeople had established an unwritten “When in Rome” policy towards any contracts they may enter on an international scale (Miller & Hollowell, 2014).
When establishing the FCPA, Congress had the intention to ensure that American businesses and individuals were not using unfair means …show more content…
Congress has stated that, while the FCPA has had an impact on what business can be done and how companies are able to go about completing that business has changed, the impact has been minimal; however, those who oppose the Act state that there has been a significant change in the way business is able to be conducted. Those who oppose the FCPA will often state that, in conjunction with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, many companies have had to completely rework their international business policies and have significantly hindered by fines for violating these Acts (Alas, Collier, & Jensen, 2008). These companies and individuals will often quote the April 2007 case of Baker Hughes Services International Inc., who was fined with a record $44 million for their violations in bribing government officials of …show more content…
The first amendment to the FCPA began in 1980, but took until 1988 to come to a conclusion that would be passed by Congress. During this time period, various bills were presented in front of the 96-100th Congresses, as either standalone bills or as amendments to existing law (FCPA 101, 2014). The amendments made in 1988, primarily concerned accountants and companies dealing in the international market. In the original FCPA, accountants were required to keep “reasonable detail” and “reasonable assurances”; however, the original act did not define what was to be considered reasonable, as its primary concern was to limit or eliminate any corrupt practices taking place by the front-line business people taking part in the actual bribery. Not only did the 1988 amendment more clearly define what was expected of accountants at these companies, it also limited criminal liability to those who knowingly failed to implement an FCPA-compliant system or those who attempted to circumvent the system that was in place (Shaw,
When establishing the FCPA, Congress had the intention to ensure that American businesses and individuals were not using unfair means …show more content…
Congress has stated that, while the FCPA has had an impact on what business can be done and how companies are able to go about completing that business has changed, the impact has been minimal; however, those who oppose the Act state that there has been a significant change in the way business is able to be conducted. Those who oppose the FCPA will often state that, in conjunction with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, many companies have had to completely rework their international business policies and have significantly hindered by fines for violating these Acts (Alas, Collier, & Jensen, 2008). These companies and individuals will often quote the April 2007 case of Baker Hughes Services International Inc., who was fined with a record $44 million for their violations in bribing government officials of …show more content…
The first amendment to the FCPA began in 1980, but took until 1988 to come to a conclusion that would be passed by Congress. During this time period, various bills were presented in front of the 96-100th Congresses, as either standalone bills or as amendments to existing law (FCPA 101, 2014). The amendments made in 1988, primarily concerned accountants and companies dealing in the international market. In the original FCPA, accountants were required to keep “reasonable detail” and “reasonable assurances”; however, the original act did not define what was to be considered reasonable, as its primary concern was to limit or eliminate any corrupt practices taking place by the front-line business people taking part in the actual bribery. Not only did the 1988 amendment more clearly define what was expected of accountants at these companies, it also limited criminal liability to those who knowingly failed to implement an FCPA-compliant system or those who attempted to circumvent the system that was in place (Shaw,