(01-19-2020 09:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 09:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 12:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 09:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 08:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The FCPA allows the SEC to charge businesses not based in the US for their actions outside the US. So how does it benefit foreign based companies if they’re treated the same as American based ones?

The only way foreign companies are advantaged is if they don’t operate in the largest market in the world.

You are wrong to a great extent.

The Siemens case was an SEC action, and the jurisdiction was founded upon Siemens being publicly traded on US stock exchanges.

Alstom jurisdiction got severely curtailed by A 2nd Circuit ruling in August 2018. The Second Circuit emphasized “a basic premise of our legal system that, in general, United States law governs domestically but does not rule the world.” Extraterritorial application of United States law without a significant tether to the United States is exceedingly rare -- pretty much non-existent.

The FCPA dragnet is limited strictly to the statute:

the FCPA provides for jurisdiction ONLY over the following four categories of persons:

American citizens, nationals or residents, regardless of whether their conduct occurred in the U.S. or abroad;

American companies, regardless of whether their conduct occurred in the U.S. or abroad;

Agents, employees, officers, directors and shareholders of American companies, including both U.S. and foreign persons, when they act on the company’s behalf, regardless of whether their conduct occurred in the U.S. or abroad; and

Foreign persons (including foreign nationals and foreign companies) who violate the FCPA while present in the U.S.

Your bald statement above is just factually incorrect.

Edited to add specific cite: United States v. Hoskins, No. 16-1010-CR (2d Cir. Aug. 24, 2018).

Your first comment is completely nonsensical, as the SEC enforced the FCPA.

*Part* of the FCPA is enforced by the SEC. Jeezus fing Krist, read the fing law. That is *before* you start squawking on your fing expertise......

If a company isnt listed in the US markets, guess what sparkles? No SEC action available.

Quote:And your last line matches what I said - Foreign persons (including foreign nationals and foreign companies) who violate the FCPA while present in the U.S.

My statement is not incorrect - the FCPA applies to American companies and foreign companies doing business in the US.

Incorrect. I suggest you actually read the charging statements in the Siemens case and the the other case.

Then read the citation I handed to you.

It *can* be used on foreign entities in the US, but on a very limited basis. The mere fact that they do business here doesnt provide universal jurisdiction.

Quote:If you want to try and argue it hinders American companies because they’re more likely to be scrutinized, go for it. But Siemens, a very obviously non-American company, was hit hard by this act. So don’t try and state that the FCPA doesn’t apply to all non-American based companies.

I suggest you read what I fing typed lad. Stop your 'making up what I typed' stuff that you pop off with so well.

My last point was "Foreign persons (including foreign nationals and foreign companies) who violate the FCPA while present in the U.S." Cut your strawman and actually read. Also, read the final clause of the sentence above, and read Hoskins. The FCPA is actually very limited in scope and reach when the actions taking place have no nexus to the United States.

When you read Hoskins, you will understand that Seimens will not be a repeated act for a very long time. When you read a little more about FCPA other than 2 paragraph burbs from law firms, you might also realize that Seimens and the French case were absolute outliers to how it had been before and the major expansion these two cases were for FCPA.

It isnt necessarily a smart thing to rely on law firm blurbs from over a fing decade ago as to the efficacy of any provision of the law. Just saying.

Good grief.

What is the point you’re trying to get across, besides trying to nitpick?

In the cases I referenced was the SEC the governing body that levied the fines, and did they use the FCPA to empower them?

Were either company referenced based in the US?

My overall point was that the FCPA does not solely affect American-based businesses. Do you disagree with that statement?

Is your rebuttal that my original statement overreached with respect to how many foreign firms are affected by the FCPA?

If so, I think you greatly exaggerated your initial rebuttal to my responses, because the only clarification that needed to be made was that a foreign-based firm either needs to be traded on a US stock exchange or is operating in the US and conduct any business furthering corruption in the US.

The point is that the FCPA affects non-US companies on a *very* limited basis. The vast, vast majority of the time to where it really doesnt even rise to an issue in the slightest. Notwithstanding your continued hozanahs to the contrary. That is the point.

So yes, just a 'nitpick' -- the nitpick being that the FCPA doesnt have anywhere *near* the reach, by a long amount, of what you tout it to have. Just a real small nitpick there, I guess.