Editing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (section)

==Requirements==
The anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA make it unlawful for a U.S. person, and certain foreign issuers of [[securities]], to make a payment to a [[foreign official]] for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person. Since the 1998 Amendment of FCPA they also apply to foreign firms and persons who take any act in furtherance of such a corrupt payment while in the U.S. the meaning of foreign official is broad. For example, an owner of a bank who is also the minister of finance would count as a foreign official according to the U.S. government. Doctors at government-owned or managed hospitals are also considered to be foreign officials under the FCPA, as is anyone working for a government-owned or managed institution or enterprise. Employees of international organizations such as the [[United Nations]] are also considered to be foreign officials under the FCPA. A 2014 federal appellate court decision has provided guidance on how the term "foreign official" is defined under FCPA. The 1998 amendment to the FCPA applies to all [[Territories of the United States|U.S territories]] as well with this amendment in turn expanding the jurisdiction of the law to include anyone that is related to the [[United States]] and deals in business or foreign affairs.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The International Anti-Bribery and Fair Competition Act of 1998 Amends the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act |url=https://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/the-international-anti-bribery-and-fair-competition-act-of-1998.html}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Rebecca |date=2023-02-20 |title=Foreign Corrupt Practices Act policy (FCPA) {{!}} Global {{!}} Washington University in St. Louis |url=https://global.wustl.edu/foreign-corrupt-practices-act-policy-fcpa/ |access-date=2024-04-27 |website=Global |language=en-US}}</ref> 

The FCPA also requires companies whose securities are listed in the U.S. to meet its accounting provisions. <ref>{{Cite web |title=15 U.S. Code § 78m - Periodical and other reports |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78m |access-date=2024-04-27 |website=LII / Legal Information Institute |language=en}}</ref> These accounting provisions operate in tandem with the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA and require respective corporations to make and keep books and records that accurately and fairly reflect the transactions of the corporation and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls. It would prevent corporations from knowingly altering these money-keeping records that they utilize for their business. While an increasing number of corporations are taking additional steps to protect their reputation and reduce their exposure by employing the services of [[due diligence]] companies tasked with vetting third party intermediaries and identifying easily overlooked government officials embedded in otherwise privately held foreign firms. These foreign companies would be subject to FCPA regulations if they are a part of the U.S. stock market and make payments or file reports of those payments to the SEC.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Office |first=U. S. Government Accountability |title=Impact of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act on U.S. Business {{!}} U.S. GAO |url=https://www.gao.gov/products/115367 |access-date=2024-04-27 |website=www.gao.gov |language=en}}</ref>

Regarding payments to foreign officials, the act draws a distinction between bribery and facilitation or "[[Grease payment|grease payments]]", which may be permissible under the FCPA, but may still violate local laws. The primary distinction is that grease payments or facilitation payments are made to an official to expedite his performance of the routine duties he is already bound to perform. The exception focuses on the purpose of the payment rather than on its value. Payments to foreign officials may be legal under the FCPA if the payments are permitted under the written laws of the host country. Certain payments or reimbursements relating to product promotion may also be permitted under the FCPA. <ref>{{Cite news |title=Investor Bulletin: The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act – Prohibition of the Payment of Bribes to Foreign Officials |url=https://www.sec.gov/investor/alerts/fcpa.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: An Overview {{!}} Insights |url=https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2010/01/the-foreign-corrupt-practices-act-an-overview |access-date=2024-04-27 |website=www.jonesday.com |language=en}}</ref>

A U.S. company acquiring a foreign firm could face successor liability for FCPA violations committed by the foreign firm prior to being acquired.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Lawler|first1=William|last2=Phillips|first2=Anthony|title=Avoiding the Threat of FCPA Successor Liability|url=https://www.transactionadvisors.com/insights/avoiding-threat-fcpa-successor-liability|journal=Transaction Advisors|issn=2329-9134|access-date=2015-07-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150723090920/https://www.transactionadvisors.com/insights/avoiding-threat-fcpa-successor-liability|archive-date=2015-07-23|url-status=live}}</ref> Generally, acquiring companies may be liable as a successor for pre-existing FCPA violations committed by an acquired company where those violations were subject to the FCPA's jurisdiction when committed.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sprinzen |first1=Nicole |last2=Hildebrand |first2=Jennifer |title=DOJ Clarifies Successor Liability for Foreign Acquisitions |url=https://www.transactionadvisors.com/insights/doj-clarifies-successor-liability-foreign-acquisitions |journal=Transaction Advisors |issn=2329-9134 |access-date=2015-01-16 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150218052939/https://www.transactionadvisors.com/insights/doj-clarifies-successor-liability-foreign-acquisitions |archive-date=2015-02-18 |url-status=live }}</ref> This position was further confirmed by the DOJ in a 2014 opinion stating that pre-acquisition conduct by a foreign target company without a jurisdictional nexus to the U.S. would not be subject to FCPA enforcement.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Fisher|first1=Alice|last2=Greenburg|first2=Douglas|last3=Sabin|first3=Barry|last4=Seltzer|first4=Nathan|last5=Su|first5=Jonathan|last6=Volkman|first6=Eric|last7=Chandler|first7=Kari|last8=Brown Jones|first8=Erin|title=DOJ Guidance Underscores Importance of Anti-corruption Due Diligence in International M&A|url=https://www.transactionadvisors.com/insights/doj-guidance-underscores-importance-anti-corruption-due-diligence-international-ma|journal=Transaction Advisors|issn=2329-9134|access-date=2015-04-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150723082828/https://www.transactionadvisors.com/insights/doj-guidance-underscores-importance-anti-corruption-due-diligence-international-ma|archive-date=2015-07-23|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Anti-bribery/anti-corruption (ABAC) solutions===

Businesses increasingly focus on their [[Core competency|core competencies]], and as a result engage more third parties to provide critical business functions. Companies do not have direct control over their third-party providers, which expose them to regulatory and reputational risk of FCPA violations by those third parties.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.economist.com/media/globalexecutive/outsourcing_revolution_e_02.pdf |title=Outsourcing revolution |publisher=www.economist.com |access-date=2019-12-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200418174321/https://www.economist.com/media/globalexecutive/outsourcing_revolution_e_02.pdf |archive-date=2020-04-18 |url-status=live }}</ref>

In April 2013, The [[Ralph Lauren Corporation]] paid off $882,000 to the SEC due to the penalty they received from violating the FCPA. This violation came from an Argentinian subsidiary manager who was paying off officials at customs to have Ralph Lauren merchandise snuck into the country. Ralph Lauren did not have any form of serious FCPA training before this incident as they had never encountered or had issues with corruption beforehand. The company then pledged to increase their due diligence on the matter as they sought to work with the [[United States Department of Justice|U.S Department Of Justice]] about their book keeping and make sure that all of their employees are properly trained on matters pertaining to the FCPA and foreign business. <ref>{{Cite web |date=2013-04-22 |title=Office of Public Affairs {{!}} Ralph Lauren Corporation Resolves Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Investigation and Agrees to Pay $882,000 Monetary Penalty {{!}} United States Department of Justice |url=https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/ralph-lauren-corporation-resolves-foreign-corrupt-practices-act-investigation-and-agrees-pay |access-date=2024-04-27 |website=www.justice.gov |language=en}}</ref>