????出人意料的是,，盡管《反海外腐敗法》使得在國(guó)外發(fā)生的賄賂行為能夠在美國(guó)受到懲罰,，但在很長(zhǎng)時(shí)間內(nèi)都沒(méi)有要求公司及其高管對(duì)此類錯(cuò)誤行為做出匯報(bào)，即便是在他們發(fā)現(xiàn)此類行為之后,。這就是為何盡管有該法律存在,，但大多數(shù)賄賂行為幾十年內(nèi)都未查明的原因,。這種情況在2002年《薩班斯-奧克雷法案》通過(guò)之后發(fā)生了變化，至少是對(duì)公開(kāi)上市公司來(lái)說(shuō)是這樣,。在該法案制約下,，公司首席執(zhí)行官和首席財(cái)務(wù)官們必須保證他們所在公司呈報(bào)的財(cái)務(wù)文件是準(zhǔn)確的,。因?yàn)楣靖吖鼙仨氹[瞞賄賂行為,，所以常常可以通過(guò)賄賂看出公司賬目里至少有一些內(nèi)容是作假的,。因此根據(jù)《薩班斯-奧克雷法案》,，不披露可能的賄賂行為實(shí)際上就違反了證券法,。
????謝爾曼斯特林律師事務(wù)所（Shearman & Sterling）合伙人菲利普?尤洛夫斯基表示，“你仍然不必告知執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu),，但你得對(duì)所呈交的財(cái)務(wù)文件中的用語(yǔ)進(jìn)行修改,，任何偏離樣板文件的說(shuō)法通常都會(huì)引起注意,。”
????這么做的結(jié)果是出現(xiàn)了一大批涉及到《反海外腐敗法》的案件,。其中對(duì)大型公開(kāi)上市企業(yè)提起的絕大多數(shù)訴訟,，都是由這些公司自己報(bào)告上來(lái)的,，目的可能是試圖減少罰金或者是將責(zé)任推給低層員工。沃爾瑪有所不同,。當(dāng)其賄賂案件東窗事發(fā)時(shí),，杜克正是沃爾瑪國(guó)際業(yè)務(wù)的負(fù)責(zé)人,。盡管如此,，他在2009年初擔(dān)任公司首席執(zhí)行官后，依然作證稱公司財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表準(zhǔn)確并且所有可能的欺詐行為都已進(jìn)行披露,。前任首席執(zhí)行官李?斯考特似乎也知道賄賂情形的存在，但也仍然簽字批準(zhǔn)了財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表,。沃爾瑪直到去年才向股東披露公司正在對(duì)可能違犯《反海外腐敗法》的行為進(jìn)行調(diào)查,。
????此外，該法案并未要求公司報(bào)告其員工賄賂國(guó)外官員的證據(jù),，而是要求他們采取合適的控制措施以便察覺(jué)賄賂行為，并在賄賂發(fā)生時(shí)進(jìn)行公正調(diào)查并做記錄,。沃爾瑪似乎并不是這么做的,。根據(jù)《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》報(bào)道,，在杜克和其他公司管理者發(fā)現(xiàn)可能的賄賂行為后，他們最終把開(kāi)展內(nèi)部調(diào)查的任務(wù)交給了一位涉嫌是賄賂同謀的管理者,。所以最后此人沒(méi)有發(fā)現(xiàn)任何關(guān)于賄賂的證據(jù),，也就毫不奇怪了。如果調(diào)查只是做做樣子,，那么這項(xiàng)調(diào)查本身也是違反《反海外腐敗法》的。
????卡普蘭表示,，“換言之,，如果沃爾瑪高管們制造了一起弄虛作假的調(diào)查,，那么對(duì)他們提出指控就是有章可循的?！?/p>
????譯者：李玫曉/汪皓 |
|
|
????That's because, surprisingly, while FCPA makes foreign bribery punishable in the U.S., for a long time there was no requirement that companies and their officials report the misdeeds, even after they found out about them. And that's why, despite the law, bribery went mostly unchecked for decades even after FCPA was on the books. That changed, at least for public companies, after the passage of Sarbanes Oxley in 2002. Under that law CEOs and CFOs must certify that their companies' financial filings are correct. Bribes, because they have to hidden, are generally an indicator that at least something in a company's books has been faked. So under Sarbanes Oxley it's effectively a violation of securities law not to disclose knowledge of potential bribes.
????"You still don't have to tell law enforcement officials, but you do have to change the language in your financial filings and any deviation from the normal boiler plate usually gets noticed," says Philip Urofsky, a partner at law firm Shearman & Sterling.
????The result has been a flood of FCPA cases. The vast majority of cases brought against large public companies under the act are self-reported by companies either trying to minimize fines or shift blame to low-level employees. That doesn't appear to be what happened at Wal-Mart. Duke was the head of the company's international operations when the allegations of bribery came to light at the company. Nonetheless, when he became CEO in early 2009, Duke attested to the fact that the financial statements were accurate, and that all instances of possible fraud had been disclosed. Former CEO Lee Scott appears to have known about the concerns about bribes and signed off on financial statements as well. The company didn't disclose to shareholders it was investigating a potential violation of FCPA until late last year.
????What's more, while companies are not required to report evidence that their employees bribed foreign officials, they are required to have controls in place to detect bribes and fairly investigate and document the matters when they occur. That doesn't seem to be what happened at Wal-Mart. According to the Times, after Duke and other company officials found out about the potential bribes they eventually assigned the internal investigation of the matter to an executive who was alleged to have been complicit in the bribery scheme. Unsurprisingly, the official found little evidence of wrong-doing. If the investigation was indeed a sham, then that would be a violation of the FCPA as well.
????"If the theory is that Wal-Mart executives created a make-believe investigation, then that would support bringing a case against them," says Kaplan. |
