Skip to content


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

Wal-Mart’s Victims, Part XIX: Why the U.S. Government Should Want the STP

We’re in the home stretch now on this series, in which we’ve explored how the FCPA can better serve its original purpose of promoting values and building institutions in developing countries. 

I’ve proposed a Supplemental Transparency Project, in which the DOJ can exercise its prosecutorial discretion to use a portion of the penalty money for the direct benefit of overseas victims. The STP would serve two purposes: it would remedy the harms caused by the defendant’s bribes, and it would take measures to prevent future harms in the host country.

In Part XVI, I suggested that the STP can further the interests of the three principal groups implicated in an FCPA enforcement action: the US government, the corporations subject to FCPA jurisdiction, and the citizens of the countries in which the bribes occur. Let’s start with the U.S. government.

It has three interests. It wants to punish and deter bribery, in the first instance. But that’s not all. As a matter of policy, the U.S. government wants to promote commerce between nations. And it wants to help build liberal institutions in developing countries — this, after all, was the original purpose of the FCPA

The STP does all three. The money used to fund the STP would not reduce the overall penalty amount. So the deterrent effect of criminal penalties remains intact — the defendant’s penalty is not reduced by a single dollar to fund the STP. The disincentive to engage in bribery remains exactly the same. 

But the STP would also help the U.S. government promote commerce and build institutions. How? Three ways. 

By issuing a well-publicized statement in the host country detailing the bribery scheme, the extent of the government’s endemic corruption is exposed. And ordinary citizens will take notice — just look at what’s going on in Brazil right now. By bankrolling investigative reporting, we’re further exposing the bribery of competitor companies. Again, the public will respond with pressure, both in the capital-importing and capital-exporting country. And by funding transparency programs, we’re training the next generation of business and civic leaders.

But not only should the U.S. government like the STP, so should the corporate community. I’ll explain how in the next post.

Wal-Mart’s Victim’s Part I can be viewed here, II here, III here, IV here, V here, VI here, VII here, VIII here, IX here, X here, XI here, XII here, XIII here, XIV here, XVa here, XVb here, XVI here, XVII here, and XVIII here.


Andy Spalding is a senior editor of the FCPA Blog.

Share this post


Comments are closed for this article!