Search

Editors

Harry Cassin Publisher and Editor

Andy Spalding Senior Editor

Jessica Tillipman Senior Editor

Richard L. Cassin Editor at Large

Elizabeth K. Spahn Editor Emeritus 

Cody Worthington Contributing Editor

Julie DiMauro Contributing Editor

Thomas Fox Contributing Editor

Marc Alain Bohn Contributing Editor

Bill Waite Contributing Editor

Shruti J. Shah Contributing Editor

Russell A. Stamets Contributing Editor

Richard Bistrong Contributing Editor 

Eric Carlson Contributing Editor

Bill Steinman Contributing Editor

FCPA Blog Daily News

« How should we define corruption? (Part II) | Main | ICE appeals victim rights case to Supreme Court »
Tuesday
Dec042012

A compliance lesson from middle school

The seventh grade shop teacher said, 'Always cut the wood on the way side of the line. That protects against mistakes. You can shorten a board, but you can never make it longer.'

We thought of that wisdom while listening to some of the talk about the new FCPA guidance. Many are saying the DOJ and SEC didn't eliminate the 'uncertainty.' That there are still gray areas in the FCPA. That knowing what bribery is permitted or outlawed still isn't crystal clear.

What to do in the face of uncertainty about the FCPA? Always cut the wood on the way side of the line.

That was exactly the lesson from an FCPA case that went to the U.S. court of appeals. David Kay and Douglas Murphy, in their 2002 criminal trial on FCPA charges, argued that bribes to reduce their company's taxes in Haiti couldn't violate the FCPA. Those bribes, they said, weren't really about 'obtaining or retaining business' and so weren't covered by the antibribery provisions.

The trial court agreed and dismissed the case. But the Fifth Circuit shot them down.

'A man of common intelligence,' it ruled, 'would have understood that . . . in bribing foreign officials, [Kay and Murphy were] treading close to a reasonably-defined line of illegality. . . . Defendants took this risk, and splitting hairs . . . does not allow them to argue successfully that the FCPA’s standards were vague.'

When a federal appeals court calls defendants hair splitters, we should all understand that putting the FCPA under a lawyer's microscope is a bad idea. Risk-taking interpretations aren't wise when the margin of error throws you into felonious behavior.

So how are we to comply with an 'unclear' FCPA? By avoiding doing things that might violate it.

In other words, always cut the wood on the way side of the line.

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.