Install

Get the latest updates as we post them — right on your browser

Today's paper. Last Updated: 02/10/2012

Cracking Down on Corruption

Aggressive enforcement of anti-corruption laws, particularly the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, is more than ever forcing multinational companies to avoid business practices and business partners that raise corruption risks. It is a fact that Russian companies seeking to do business with U.S. and other foreign companies will be scrutinized by prospective partners seeking assurance that their cooperation will not be tainted by improper payments.

Russian companies must act now if they wish to serve as agents, consultants or other service providers for U.S. companies, if they hope to enter joint ventures with U.S. partners, if they seek to position themselves as takeover targets or merger candidates for U.S. suitors, or if they seek to list shares on a U.S. stock exchange or otherwise undertake business in the United States.

The FCPA prohibits offering, giving or authorizing anything of value — whether cash or other tangible property or intangibles such as personal favors — to any non-U.S. official, including individuals serving state-controlled commercial enterprises, political party or political candidate to obtain some business advantage. The statute also requires companies to keep accurate books and maintain internal controls designed to prevent or detect improper payments.

Why is this relevant? First, non-U.S. companies are also subject to the FCPA if they conduct business in the United States, if their shares are listed on U.S. exchanges, or if they act on behalf of a U.S. company in connection with an illicit payment to a foreign public official.

Mercedes-Benz’s affiliate in Russia recently became the first Russian-based company to face criminal charges under the FCPA. It pleaded guilty in a Washington courtroom on April 2, agreeing to pay more than $27 million in criminal fines to settle charges arising out of bribes paid to Russian officials or relatives of Russian officials, in many cases through shell companies registered in the United States and into or through bank accounts located in the United States.

Second, Russian companies seeking to do business with U.S. partners and others subject to the FCPA must not present compliance risks that outweigh the potential benefits of cooperation. Faced with evidence that a partner is paying or considering bribes in connection with its business, the U.S. company must undertake an internal investigation that can take years to complete and cost tens of millions of dollars. Criminal and civil fines and remediation can add millions more. Given these risks to their reputation and to their bottom line, companies are increasingly saying “no” if they even suspect that a partner may subject them to risks of FCPA liability.

How can Russian companies make sure that they are saying “yes” instead of “no”? First, they must deal with potential compliance problems as quickly as possible and resolve any issues before their prospective partners begin performing due diligence. Second, it is important that companies institute strict and enforceable internal policies to regulate the use of cash, payments to charitable and political organizations at the request of public officials and the questionable use of intermediary companies.

All companies doing business in Russia should  make a commitment to integrity and transparency. This means that if they make or made illicit payments or provided other benefits to any public officials, these practices must stop and remedial methods must be taken as soon as possible.

Russian companies must be committed to the elimination of illicit payments, and the institution of internal controls should be embodied in a comprehensive anti-corruption compliance program. This must be supported by leadership and updated as the company’s business and anti-corruption rules evolve. Employees must believe that there will be real rewards for compliance in terms of compensation and advancement, and there must be real consequences for failure to comply.

Russian companies must ensure that third parties with which it does business are legitimate companies, capable of performing the services for which they were contracted, and not merely conduits for improper payments. To the extent that a third party is connected to a government official, it should be confident that he will not misuse his position for the company’s benefit.

To be sure, compliance with these recommendations involves a major commitment of time and resources and may make conducting business more difficult — particularly in the beginning. But experience shows that the time and resources necessary to resolve problems arising out of official or commercial bribery are much greater.

The commitment to investigating and prosecuting bribery around the world by U.S. and other authorities is a relatively new phenomenon, but it doesn’t appear to be going away soon. Be prepared.

Jonathan D. Nelms practices in the International Trade & Compliance Group at Baker & McKen­zie in Washington. This comment appeared in Vedomosti.





Tags

foreign investment corruption bribery Foreign Corrupt Practices Act FCPA



Also in Opinion

Putin Chasing Imaginary American Ghosts

Here we go again — another round of anti-Americanism from the Kremlin and state-controlled media. Blaming outside forces for Russia's woes has a long history in the country. The closer we get to the March 4 presidential election, the more intense the anti-American hysteria becomes.


Putting Everything In Its Place

Remember how I drove you all nuts with the innate propensity of Russian creatures and inanimate objects to stand, sit or lie? And how relieved you were when I moved on to other topics?
Well, I'm back.

Russia Gets Bad Rap Over Syria

As the violent standoff between Syria's security forces and armed opposition groups roils the country, the crisis has opened heated divisions at the United Nations Security Council.

A Propaganda Breakdown

Propaganda is not as powerful as many think. You might convince Russians that people in Egypt, Italy and Ukraine are paid or otherwise persuaded to join street protests, but you certainly cannot convince them that their own dissatisfaction with the government is the result of a foreign conspiracy.

Violent Reaction to Protests Could Bury Putin

Nonviolent revolutions do not always remain nonviolent, as the examples of uprisings in Egypt, Libya and Syria in the Arab Spring have shown. But peaceful movements for regime change often do succeed. For example, they have toppled illegitimate rulers, as with the post-Soviet Color Revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, and ended apartheid in South Africa.

Realpolitik Without Realism

People have been asking me all week why the Kremlin is so stubbornly supportive of Syrian President Bashar Assad. "Is Russia's support based solely on weapons contracts with Syria," they wonder, "or the Kremlin's desire to maintain its naval base at the Tartus port?"




Discussion
The Moscow Times welcomes your comments and invites you to discuss topics with other readers. Your comment will be posted automatically to enable a live discussion. If you aren't familiar with our comments policy, you can read it here.

If you're a registered user, you can start typing your comment below. If not, take a moment to sign up. and then return to the article.

If your comment doesn't appear, contact us by using our web form.

Comments

Comments via Facebook

print


Comments

This article has no comments.

Be the first to leave a comment



To Our Readers

The Moscow Times welcomes letters to the editor. Letters for publication should be signed and bear the signatory's address and telephone number.

Letters to the editor should be sent by fax to (7-495) 232-6529, by e-mail to oped@imedia.ru, or by post. The Moscow Times reserves the right to edit letters.



Most Read