This post is the 1,500th post to be published on FCPA Professor since the launch of this website in July 2009.
This recent post talked about genuine beliefs and accountability in the FCPA space.
Continuing with this theme, I use this milestone occasion to express my core FCPA beliefs and to encourage all readers to hold me accountable to these beliefs in the future.
The below core beliefs have long appeared on this website (see here) but are reprinted below.
I encourage all readers – and particularly those who frequently write about the FCPA and related issues in public forums – to set aside time to reflect on your core FCPA beliefs and to pledge accountability for those beliefs.
*****
My core FCPA beliefs are as follows.
- The FCPA is a fundamentally sound statute, albeit one that could be improved upon.
- Actual legal authority defines what the FCPA means, not non-legal sources of information such as enforcement agency guidance or resolved enforcement actions.
- In a legal system founded on the rule of law, success is best measured when an enforcement agency is put to its burden of proof in the context of an adversarial system, not when an enforcement agency exercises its leverage to secure settlements against risk-averse business organizations through resolution vehicles not subjected to any meaningful judicial scrutiny.
- Prosecuting individuals achieves greater deterrence than corporate-only enforcement.
- Trade barriers and distortions are often the root causes of bribery and a reduction in bribery will not be achieved without a reduction in trade barriers and distortions.
- The U.S. crusade against bribery suffers from several uncomfortable truths, including a double standard regarding corporate interaction with “foreign officials” under the FCPA and corporate interaction with U.S. officials under other U.S. laws.