Skip to content

Editors

Harry Cassin
Publisher and Editor

Andy Spalding
Senior Editor

Jessica Tillipman
Senior Editor

Bill Steinman
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

Balanced enforcement deters bribery

Enforcement is a greater deterrent, in my opinion, if directed at both corporations and individuals.

Here’s why.

While corporations are legal persons, they are typically incorporeal. They rely on natural persons (employees, agents or officers) to act on their behalf. For the same reason, they rely on people to design, implement, review and adhere to anti-corruption controls.

If enforcement is directed singularly at a corporation, its officers — who probably have strict performance targets to meet — will not have a disincentive to refrain from improper conduct.

If only the corporation’s agents and employees are targeted, the shareholders through their board representatives may not have an incentive to commit resources to erecting barriers to improper conduct.

What deters overseas bribery? Balanced enforcement that targets culpable employees and agents and the companies they act for.

_________________

Michael Ndichu Kuria is a contributing editor of the FCPA Blog.

Share this post

LinkedIn
Facebook
Twitter

1 Comment

  1. I absolutely agree !


Comments are closed for this article!