FBI arrests S&W VP at SHOT show

[PeteCamp]

I don't want to hijack the thread here ... but somebody help me understand!

How is it wrong to "bribe" a foreign official in business, but okay to bribe a United States Senator in return for his vote on a health care bill?

Just askin...

[Mack]

I don't want to hijack the thread here ... but somebody help me understand!

How is it wrong to "bribe" a foreign official in business, but okay to bribe a United States Senator in return for his vote on a health care bill?

Just askin...

Because the Senators are the one's writting the laws. So they get to pick and choose how THEY will be benefitted. Just my humble opinion.

[TDDude]

I will be very interested to see how many US companies are in business overseas 5 years from now if all of these cases are prosecuted.

AND I will be even more interested to see who gets sent to the slammer.

I wanna see how many Coca Cola execs get slapped; McDonalds, Pepsi Co. Valero Energy, Cisco, Google, Ford, Halliburton, Brown & Root, Exxonn, General Electric, .........

I'll bet no one from General Motors gets stung.

I know I'm extremely narrow minded on this but I'm fairly certain China doesn't have these rules; or India, or Japan, or Korea.

I'm still stunned that these laws are on the books. Can y'all tell when a Redneck is stunned? Just Stunned.!!

I think I need to go shoot something. (In a safe and lawful way, of course)

[seamusTX]

Here's a partial list of prosecutions: http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/f ... ndixa.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There are quite a few big names there, though most are companies that I never heard of.

- Jim

[57Coastie]

There are good reasons behind the FCPA. The way things used to be (and still are in many circumstances), vendors paid huge bribes to corrupt government officials, then built the bribes into the price that the government of the country paid. The funds used to pay the bill were often foreign aid or proceeds of the country's natural resources.

- Jim

Right on, Jim, but let's go one step further. It is not unlikely that if these schemes had gone to fruition, some, if not much, of the funds ultimately used to make the purchase, and pay the bribe, would have been from not only U. S. foreign aid, in general, but from U.S. appropriated funds intended to build up the military of our (at least for the moment) ally.

And who ends up paying the bribe? The U. S. taxpayer. The armaments, as is customary in order to subsidize the U. S. gun industry (a whole new subject), are not sold by the good old USofA, but from civilian sources with funds provided by the USofA.

Jim 2

[57Coastie]

I don't want to hijack the thread here ... but somebody help me understand!

How is it wrong to "bribe" a foreign official in business, but okay to bribe a United States Senator in return for his vote on a health care bill?

Just askin...

Good question, Pete. Answer: It is not "okay" to bribe a United States senator in return for his vote on any bill. In the case of bribery of this sort both sides to such a transaction have committed a felony.

The definition of the crime of bribery is sometimes loaded with complex legal nuances. If you are referring to the customary give and take in the process of compromise between legislators in getting legislation enacted, I defer to others.

Jim

[bizarrenormality]

Right on, Jim, but let's go one step further. It is not unlikely that if these schemes had gone to fruition, some, if not much, of the funds ultimately used to make the purchase, and pay the bribe, would have been from not only U. S. foreign aid, in general, but from U.S. appropriated funds intended to build up the military of our (at least for the moment) ally.

And who ends up paying the bribe? The U. S. taxpayer. The armaments, as is customary in order to subsidize the U. S. gun industry (a whole new subject), are not sold by the good old USofA, but from civilian sources with funds provided by the USofA.

Cut foreign aid to bare bones. Or cut it to nothing. The U.S. taxpayers will save even more money.

[TDDude]

FCPA PROSECUTIONS AND CIVIL ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (1)

I. Pre-Act Criminal Prosecutions:


U.S. v. J. Ray McDermott & Co. Inc., E.D. Louisiana, 1978.
U.S. v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, (80 Cr. No. 0431), S.D.N.Y., 1980.
U.S. v. The Williams Companies, (Cr. No. 78-00144), D.D.C., 1978 [Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act].
The company paid a fine and civil penalty of $187,000./P>

U.S. v. Control Data Corporation, (Cr. No. 78-00210), D.D.C., 1978 [Mail Fraud and Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act].
The corporation paid a fine and civil penalty of $1,381,000.

U.S. v. Westinghouse Electric Company, (Cr. No. 78-00566), D.D.C., 1978 [False statements to Export-Import Bank and Agency for International Development].
The company paid a fine of $300,000.

U.S. v. United Brands Company, (Cr. No. 78-538), S.D.N.Y., 1978 [Mail Fraud].
The company paid a fine of $15,000.

U.S. v. United States Lines, Inc., (Cr. No. ), D.D.C., [Conspiracy to defraud the Federal Maritime Administration].
The company paid a fine of $5,000.

U.S. v. Sea-Land Services, Inc., (Cr. No. 78-103), D.D.C. 1978 [Conspiracy to defraud the Federal Maritime Administration].
The company paid a fine of $5,000.

U.S. v. Seatrain Lines, Inc., (Cr. No. 78-49) [Conspiracy to defraud the Federal Maritime Administration and Currency Transactions Reporting Act].
The company and a subsidiary each paid fines of $260,000.

U.S. v. Lockheed Corporation, (Cr. No. 79-00270), D.D.C., 1979 [Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act, Wire Fraud, false statements to Export-Import Bank].
The company paid a fine and civil penalties of $647,000.

U.S. v. Gulfstream American Corporation, (Cr. No. 79-00007), D.D.C., 1979 [False Statements to Export-Import Bank and Commerce Department].
The company paid a fine of $120,000.

U.S. v. Page Airways, Inc., (Cr. No. 7900273), D.D.C., 1978 [Currency and Foreign Transactions Report Act].
The company paid a fine and civil penalty of $52,647.

U.S. v. Textron, Inc.(Cr. No. 79-00330), D.D.C, 1979 [Currency and Foreign Transactions Report Act].
The company paid a fine and civil penalty of $131,670.

U.S. v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation., et al., (Cr. No. 79-516), D.D.C., [Mail Fraud, Wire Fraud, conspiracy, false statements to Export-Import Bank].
II. FCPA Criminal Prosecutions:


U.S. v. Kenny International Corp., (Cr. No. 79-372), D.D.C., 1979.
The company pled to one count of violating the FCPA and consented to an injunction against further FCPA violations. The corporation was fined $50,000 and required to pay restitution to the Cook Islands government in the amount of NZ $337,000.

The chairman of Kenny Int'l consented to a civil injunction and agreed to enter a plea of guilty to criminal charges pending in the Cook Islands.

U.S. v. Crawford Enterprises, Inc., Donald G. Crawford, William E. Hall, Mario S. Gonzalez, Ricardo G. Beltran, Andres I. Garcia, George S. McLean, Luis A. Uriarte, Al L. Eyster and James R. Smith, (Cr. No. H-82-224), S.D.Tx, Houston Division, 1982. Crawford Ent. Pled no contest Fined $3,450,000
D. Crawford Pled no contest Fined $309,000
W. Hall Pled no contest Fined $150,000
A. Garcia Pled no contest Fined $75,000
A. Eyster Pled no contest Fined $5,000
J. Smith Pled no contest Fined $5,000
G. McLean Acquitted

U.S. v. C.E. Miller Corporation and Charles E. Miller, (Cr. No. 82-788), C.D. Cal., 1982.
The corporation pled guilty and was fined $20,000. The individual defendant pled guilty and was sentenced to three years probation and 500 hours community service.

U.S. v. Marquis King, (Cr. No. 83-00020), D.D.C., 1983.
The defendant pled guilty to violations of Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act and was sentenced to 14 months incarceration and required to pay prosecution costs.

U.S. v. Ruston Gas Turbines, Inc., (Cr. No. H-82-207), S.D. Tex., 1982.
The corporation pled guilty to a FCPA violation and was fined $750,000.

U.S. v. International Harvester Company, (Cr. No. 82-244), S.D. Tex., 1982.
The corporation pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA and was fined $10,000 plus costs of $40,000.

An individual defendant also pled guilty to one count and was sentenced to one year incarceration (suspended).

U.S. v. Applied Process Products Overseas, Inc., (Cr. No. 83-00004), D.D.C., 1983.
The company pled guilty to a FCPA violation and was fined $5,000. In addition it consented to a permanent civil injunction.

U.S. v. Gary Bateman, (Cr. No. 83-00005), D.D.C., 1983.
The defendant pled guilty to 5 CFTR misdemeanors and was sentenced to three years probation. In addition, he agreed to pay a civil penalty of $229,512, a civil tax payment of $300,000, and costs of prosecution of $5,000.

U.S. v. Sam P. Wallace Company, Inc., (Cr. No. 83-0034) (PG), D.P.R., 1983.
The corporation pled guilty to three counts of FCPA accounting violations and was fined $30,000. In addition, it also pled guilty to to a CFTR violation and was fined $500,000.

U.S. v. Alfonso A. Rodriguez, (Cr. No. 83-0044 (JP)), D.P.R., 1983.
The defendant pled guilty to one count of FCPA bribery and was sentenced to three years probation and fined $10,000.

U.S. v. Harry G. Carpenter and W.S. Kirkpatrick, Inc., (Cr. No. 85-353), D.N.J., 1985.
The corporation pled guilty to a FCPA violation and was fined $75,000.

The individual defendant pled guilty to one count FCPA bribery and was sentenced to three years probation, community service, and a fine of $10,000.

U.S. v. Silicon Contractors, Inc., Diversified Group, Inc., Herbert D. Hughes, Ronald R. Richardson, Richard L. Noble and John Sherman, (Cr. No. 85-251), E.D. La., 1985.
The corporation pled guilty to a FCPA violation, agreed to a permanent civil injunction, and was fined $150,000.

Hughes, Richardson, Noble and Sherman agreed to permanent injunctions in a civil case.

U.S. v. NAPCO International, Inc. and Venturian Corporation, (Cr. No. 4-89-65), D. Minn., 1989.
The defendants pled guilty to three counts of FCPA bribery and were fined $785,000. In addition, they paid $140,000 in a civil settlement and $75,000 to settle tax charges.

U.S. v. Richard H. Liebo, (Cr. No. 4-89-76), D. Minn., 1989.
The defendant was convicted of FCPA bribery and false statements and was sentenced to 18 months incarceration (suspended) with three years probation.

U.S. v. Goodyear International Corp., (Cr. No. 89-0156), D.D.C, 1989.
The corporation pled guilty to one count of FCPA bribery and was fined $250,000.

United States v. Joaquin Pou, Alfredo G. Duran, and Jose Guasch (S.D. Fla. 1989); U.S. v. Robert Neil Gurin (S.D. Fla. 1989).
Guasch and Gurin pled guilty to conspiracy to violate the FCPA; Duran was acquitted at trial; Pou jumped bail.

U.S. v. Young Rubicam Inc., Arthur R. Klein, Thomas Spangenberg, Arnold Foote Jr., Eric Anthony Abrahams, and Steven M. McKenna, (Cr. No. N-89-68 (PCD)), D. Conn., 1990.
The company pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate FCPA and was fined $500,000.

U.S. v. George V. Morton, (Cr. No. 3-90-061-H), N.D. Tex. (Dallas Div.), 1990.
The defendant pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate FCPA and was sentenced to three years probation.

U.S. v. John Blondek, Vernon R. Tull, Donald Castle and Darrell W.T. Lowry, (Cr. 741), N.D. Tex. 1990
Two of the defendants were acquitted at trial. The charges were dismissed against the two remaining defendants. In separate cases, the Canadian agent, Morton, pled to conspiracy to violate the FCPA and the company agreed to a civil injunction enjoining it from future violations of the FCPA.

U.S. v. F.G. Mason Engineering and Francis G. Mason, (Case No. B-90-29), JAC, D. Conn. 1990.
The corporation pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA, was fined $75,000, and was required to pay restitution of $160,000.

The individual defendant also pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA, was sentenced to 5 years probation, and was fined $75,000 (joint with Company).

U.S. v. Harris Corporation, John D. Iacobucci and Ronald L. Schultz, (Cr. No. 90-0456), N.D. Cal., 1990.
The court granted a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's case.

U.S. v. Herbert Steindler, Rami Dotan, and Harold Katz, (Cr. No. 194-29), S.D. Ohio 1994.
One defendant pled guilty to three counts of conspiracy, wire fraud and money laundering and was sentenced to 84 months incarceration and required to forfeit $1,741,453. The remaining defendants are fugitives.

U.S. v. Vitusa Corporation, (Cr. No. 94-253)(MTB), D.N.J., 1994.
The corporation pled guilty to a FCPA violation and was fined $20,000.

U.S. v. Denny Herzberg, (Cr. No. 94-254)(MTB), D.N.J., 1994.
The defendant pled guilty to a FCPA violation and was sentenced to two years probation and fined $5,000.

U.S. v. Lockheed Corporation, Suleiman A. Nassar and Allen R. Love, (Cr. No. 1:94-Cr-22-016), N.D., Ga. Atlanta Div. 1994.
The corporation pled guilty to conspiracy to violate the FCPA and was fined $21.8 million. In addition, it had to pay a $3 million civil settlement. Defendant Nassar pled guilty to two counts and was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. Defendant Love pled guilty to one count in a related case and was fined $20,000.

U.S. v. David H. Mead and Frerik Pluimers, (Cr. 98-240-01) D.N.J., Trenton Div. 1998.
Defendant Mead was convicted following a jury trial of conspiracy to violate the FCPA and the Travel Act (incorporating New Jersey's commercial bribery statute) and two counts each of substantive violations of the FCPA and the Travel Act. Defendant Mead was sentenced, after a departure from the Guidelines, to four months imprisonment, four months home detention, three years supervised release, and a $20,000 fine. Defendant Pluimers remains at large.

U.S. v. Herbert K. Tannenbaum, (98 Cr. 784) S.D.N.Y. 1998.
Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to violate the FCPA. The defendant was sentenced to one year and a day imprisonment and a $15,000 fine.

U.S. v. Saybolt, Inc. & Saybolt North America Inc. (98 Cr 10266 WGY) D. Mass. 1998.
Defendant companies pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA and one substantive violation of the FCPA and were sentenced to pay a $1,500,000 fine and five years probation.

United States v. Control System Specialist, Inc., and Darrold Richard Crites (Cr-3-98-073) S.D. Ohio, Dayton Division, 1998.
Defendants pled guilty to conspiracy to violate the FCPA and to pay an illegal gratuity to a federal employee and substantive violations of the FCPA and 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(A). Crites was sentenced to three years probation and 150 hours community service; the company was sentenced to a fine of $1500 and one year probation.

United States v. IMS and Donald Qualey (Cr.3-99-008) S.D. Ohio, Dayton Division, 1999
Defendants pled guilty to conspiracy to violate the FCPA and to a substantive count. IMS was defunct at sentencing and was sentenced to a fine of $1,000. Defendant Qualey, after a departure from the Guidelines, was sentenced to a fine of $5,000, home confinement for four months, and 150 hours of community service.

United States v. Robert Richard King and Pablo Barquero Hernandez (01-00190-01/02-CR-W) W.D. Mo. 2001; United States v. Richard Halford (01-00221-01-Cr-W-1); United States v. Albert Reitz (01-00222-01-Cr-W-1)
Two defendants pleaded to FCPA conspiracy; sentencing is pending. Two defendants indicted for conspiracy, FCPA, and Travel Act violations in connections with an agreement to bribe officials and political parties to obtain a land concession. Trial is pending.

United States v. Joshua Cantor (No. 01 Cr. 687) S.D.N.Y. 2001
Defendant pled to conspiracy to violate the FCPA and various securities fraud charges. Sentencing is pending. Related SEC complaints and orders filed against American Banknote Holographics Inc., Cantor, and Morris Weissman (see SEC Litigation Release 17068A).

United States v. David Kay (No. 4-01-914) S.D. Tex. 2001
Trial pending.

United States v. Gautam Sengupta (No. ______) D.D.C. 2002

Defendant pled to mail fraud conspiracy and FCPA. Sentencing is pending.

III. FCPA Civil Injunctive Actions:


U.S. v. Roy J. Carver and E. Eugene Holley, (Civ. No. 79-1768), S.D. Fl., 1979.
Carver and Holley consented to permanent injunctions from future violations of FCPA.

U.S. v. Finbar B. Kenny, et al., (Civ. 79-2038), 1979.
U.S. v. Dornier GmbH (D. Minn. 1990).
U.S. v. Eagle Manufacturing, Inc., (Civil Action No. B-91-171), S.D. Tex., 1991.
U.S. v. American Totalisator Company Inc., 1993.
The corporation consented to permanent injunction from future violations of FCPA.

U.S. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., (No. 99CV12566-NG), D. Mass. 1999
The corporation consented to a permanent injunction from future violations of the FCPA, agreed to make specific improvements to its compliance program and to submit to periodic audits, agreed to pay a $400,000 civil penalty and $50,000 costs of investigation.

U.S. & SEC v. KMPG Siddharta Siddharta & Harsono and Sonny Harsono (Civ. Action No. H-01-3105), S.D. Tex. 2001
In a joint complaint, the SEC & DOJ charged the defendants with violations of the FCPA. Without admitting or denying the allegations, the defendants consented to the entry of a Final Judgment that enjoined them from violating the antibribery and books and records provisions of the FCPA. See SEC Litigation Release 17127. For related SEC actions against Baker Hughes and two of its executives, see SEC Litigation Release 17126 and Administrative Action No. 3-10572.

IV. FCPA Accounting Cases (since January 2000)

U.S. v. UNC/Lear Services (No. 3:CR-31-J), W.D. Ky. 2000
In connection with falsely stating to the Defense Department that it had paid no foreign agents in a FMIS contract, the corporation pleaded guilty to violations of the mail fraud, false statement, and FCPA accounting statutes and agreed to pay a $75,000 fine, $768,000 in restitution, and $132,000 in civil penalties.

U.S. v. Daniel Ray Rothrock (No.SA01CR343OG), W.D. Tex. 2001
In connection with authorizing the payment and entry on Allied Product's books of a false invoice to cover payments in Russia, the defendant agreed to plead guilty to a violation of the FCPA's books and records provision. Sentencing is pending.

V. Independent SEC Enforcement Actions (since January 2000)

SEC v. International Business Machines
SEC v. Chiquita Brands International
VI. Other Cases:


U.S. v. General Electric Company, (Cr. No. 1-92-87), S.D. Ohio 1992.
U.S. v. Benjamin Sonnenschein, (Cr. No. 92-680) E.D.N.Y. 1992.
U.S. v. Gary S. Klein, (Cr. No. 1-93-53) S.D. Ohio 1993.
U.S. v. National Airmotive Corporation, (DKT. No. CD93-377-CAL) N.D. Cal. 1993.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 The SEC, of course, has independent jurisdiction to bring civil enforcement actions against issuers and directors, officers, employees, agents, and shareholders of issuers.

It seems to me that most of these fines are in the "normal cost of doing business" amounts. $300,000.00 to Westinghouse? I'm sure it hurts to have to pay it but that's probably what the summer electric bill is for a couple months in the Georgetown plant.

Lockheed really got zapped for $21.8 mil. I wonder whom they made angry.

The Herbert Steindler, Rami Dotan, and Harold Katz case sounds more like organized crime than someone trying to do legitimate business. 7 years in the slam seems a bit harsh compared to all the other suspended sentences & probation most of the others got; plus, the rest of the guys from this group seem to have skipped the country.

Others who actually went to jail spent from 4 months to one year plus probation.

The vast majority got probation or suspended sentences.

I still think the law is dumb and needs to go away. Some have argued that it’s American aid dollars that are used to buy the products that are being sold. I say, “So What?” I’d much rather American aid dollars go an American company.

But what do I know?? I'm just some dude.

Oh well, I guess this thread needs to peter out and go to bed.

[chabouk]

It seems to me that most of these fines are in the "normal cost of doing business" amounts.

That brings up a great point: most of the time the results of these types of "crimes" results in a fine. In other words, the price for paying off someone other than the U.S. Government, is that you have to pay off the U.S. Government.

(Of course, given the perverse incentive system in place, the taxpayers lose money on these deals, because they typically cost more to prosecute than they collect.)

Legally, bribery requires a direct quid-pro-quo. That's why it's not "bribery", legally speaking, for a U.S. Senator to change her vote in exchange for a pledge of $300 million to her state. She didn't directly receive the money, so it's not bribery. She might see the personal gain of staying in office, or power and influence by getting to say how and where the money is spent, but that is indirect and often not guaranteed (except through mutual blackmail).

Likewise, it's not bribing the U.S. Attorney if you agree for your company (legally a "person", but not a "natural person") to plead guilty and pay a fine in exchange for charges being dropped against people. The U.S. Attorney will have a conviction feather in his cap and will probably be rewarded, but not directly.

I guess some other well-known organizations should have adopted the same tactic: it wouldn't be "racketeering" if John's Fire and Security Service protected your business from unfortunate tragedy, as their way of saying "thanks" for your generous donation to the Gotti Home for Troubled Youth.

Morally, I see no difference in these three scenarios. To play the game, you have to make sure the right people get their cut. Sometimes competing groups insist they're the ones entitled to the cut.

[57Coastie]

It seems to me that most of these fines are in the "normal cost of doing business" amounts.

That brings up a great point: most of the time the results of these types of "crimes" results in a fine. In other words, the price for paying off someone other than the U.S. Government, is that you have to pay off the U.S. Government.

(Of course, given the perverse incentive system in place, the taxpayers lose money on these deals, because they typically cost more to prosecute than they collect.)

Legally, bribery requires a direct quid-pro-quo. That's why it's not "bribery", legally speaking, for a U.S. Senator to change her vote in exchange for a pledge of $300 million to her state. She didn't directly receive the money, so it's not bribery. She might see the personal gain of staying in office, or power and influence by getting to say how and where the money is spent, but that is indirect and often not guaranteed (except through mutual blackmail).

Likewise, it's not bribing the U.S. Attorney if you agree for your company (legally a "person", but not a "natural person") to plead guilty and pay a fine in exchange for charges being dropped against people. The U.S. Attorney will have a conviction feather in his cap and will probably be rewarded, but not directly.

I guess some other well-known organizations should have adopted the same tactic: it wouldn't be "racketeering" if John's Fire and Security Service protected your business from unfortunate tragedy, as their way of saying "thanks" for your generous donation to the Gotti Home for Troubled Youth.

Morally, I see no difference in these three scenarios. To play the game, you have to make sure the right people get their cut. Sometimes competing groups insist they're the ones entitled to the cut.

A good thoughtful discussion, Chabouk, taking a look at both sides.

Here is another scenario. Where would you place it in the spectrum?

PERRY REBUFFS CALL FOR CAPITOL METAL DETECTORS

AUSTIN — The day after a shooting outside the state Capitol, lawmakers on Friday suggested that metal detectors to the building entrances were imminent, a move Gov. Rick Perry suggested he would not likely support.

“I'm always up for looking at new ways to protect our citizens, but the last thing I want is for the Texas Capitol to turn into DFW Airport,” Perry said Friday after accepting endorsements by the Texas State Rifle Association and National Rifle Association....

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 30934.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This may sorta' merge a couple of current threads, Chabouk, but it appears that it may be another (gray?) area you so aptly analyzed.

Bribery? Immoral? Just lousy timing? Something else?

Jim

[seamusTX]

Others who actually went to jail spent from 4 months to one year plus probation.
The vast majority got probation or suspended sentences.

These punishments are not trivial.

In the case of criminal prosecutions, many of the sentences are felonies, even though the convict serves little jail time. You know what that means.

Many of the people involved are foreigners conducting international business, who are unable to travel abroad from the time of their arrest to the end of their trial (if found not guilty) or sentence (if found guilty).

Other possible consequences are:

• Termination of the illegal deal.
• The cost and length of the trial.
• Loss of reputation for both individuals and companies.
• Unemployment for individuals.

- Jim

[chabouk]

PERRY REBUFFS CALL FOR CAPITOL METAL DETECTORS

AUSTIN — The day after a shooting outside the state Capitol, lawmakers on Friday suggested that metal detectors to the building entrances were imminent, a move Gov. Rick Perry suggested he would not likely support.

“I'm always up for looking at new ways to protect our citizens, but the last thing I want is for the Texas Capitol to turn into DFW Airport,” Perry said Friday after accepting endorsements by the Texas State Rifle Association and National Rifle Association....

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 30934.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This may sorta' merge a couple of current threads, Chabouk, but it appears that it may be another (gray?) area you so aptly analyzed.

Bribery? Immoral? Just lousy timing? Something else?

Jim

I appreciate the compliment!

While I mentioned the TSRA/NRA endorsement in that other thread, I don't think there's any quid pro quo here. The endorsements really aren't a thing of value being exchange for consideration. I say that, because: 1) Perry has always had a good relationship with the gun rights lobby, so TSRA/NRA aren't gaining anything; 2) Perry is the probable winner of both the primary and general elections, so he's not gaining anything; and 3) the governor has no say over what the legislature allows in the capitol building.

I could be wrong on that last one, since they would have to change the statutes over his veto to make the building off-limits. But they could post all meetings with 30.06 signs.

[57Coastie]

Others who actually went to jail spent from 4 months to one year plus probation.
The vast majority got probation or suspended sentences.

These punishments are not trivial.

In the case of criminal prosecutions, many of the sentences are felonies, even though the convict serves little jail time. You know what that means.

Many of the people involved are foreigners conducting international business, who are unable to travel abroad from the time of their arrest to the end of their trial (if found not guilty) or sentence (if found guilty).

Other possible consequences are:

• Termination of the illegal deal.
• The cost and length of the trial.
• Loss of reputation for both individuals and companies.
• Unemployment for individuals.

- Jim

Here is another couple of convictions reported in the Chronicle this morning, JIm. Two felony convictions. Once again the relative ease of getting a conspiracy conviction is pointed out.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/bus ... 41149.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim

[mgood]

I don't want to hijack the thread here ... but somebody help me understand!

How is it wrong to "bribe" a foreign official in business, but okay to bribe a United States Senator in return for his vote on a health care bill?

Just askin...

Because the Senators are the one's writting the laws. So they get to pick and choose how THEY will be benefitted. Just my humble opinion.

Oh, our elected officials would not accept bribes. Certainly they're above selling votes.
(We may often think they're stupid, but most of them are smart enough to not get caught.)
However, donations to their re-election campaigns are appreciated.
And thank you for bringing your issue to my attention, Mr. Big Money campaign contributor. I'll be sure to give that serious consideration before the matter comes up for a vote. I always have the best interests of my constituents at heart, especially the ones with deep pockets.

I know y'all already covered this pretty well. I just had to chime in.

[57Coastie]

Blackwater is being investigated concerning possible violation of FCPA (or, perhaps more likely, conspiracy to violate FCPA) in its dealings with Iraqi authorities. Arguments on both sides are reported in the Times. We shall see....

In any event, we appear to be seeing a ramping up in DOJ.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/world ... er.html?hp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim