Regulatory: A guide to gift-giving around the Chinese New Year
Chinese New Year is upon us.
February 13, 2013 at 04:15 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Chinese New Year is upon us. This important Chinese holiday is celebrated not just in the world's most populous country, but also in many other countries with significant Chinese populations. With the holiday comes the tradition of gift giving, intended to wish relatives and close friends good luck in the coming year. As many multinationals know, this tradition also extends to business relationships, and gifts are commonly exchanged among customers, suppliers and partners, as well as regulators and government officials with whom the businesses frequently interact.
This gift-giving tradition often collides with company compliance policies and, for U.S. companies or companies listed on a U.S. exchange, the restrictions imposed by the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). As every compliance professional knows, the FCPA generally prohibits giving anything of value to a foreign official for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business or securing an unfair business advantage. This generalized restriction results in thorny problems when it comes to Chinese New Year gifts to state-owned customers (whose employees are deemed foreign officials under the FCPA) or regulators. After all, what is the point of giving a gift to the customs inspector if not, at least in some small way, to improve your relationship and, hopefully, ease your regulatory difficulties?
On Nov.14, 2012, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued their long awaited Resource Guide to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Through the guidance, the DOJ and SEC set out the government's view on a wide range of FCPA enforcement topics. One of the most practical sections relates to gift, entertainment and travel expenditures. Given that Chinese New Year is here, it seems the perfect time to look at the guidance to see if it can help multinationals think through how to manage the cultural expectations surrounding gifts and harmonize them with the FCPA's often vague and misunderstood expectations.
At a high level, the guidance confirms that certain gifts, entertainment and travel are appropriate and necessary for conducting business in the modern world:
“A small gift or token of esteem or gratitude is often an appropriate way for business people to display respect for each other. Some hallmarks of appropriate gift-giving are when the gift is given openly and transparently, properly recorded in the giver's books and records, provided only to reflect esteem or gratitude, and permitted under local law.”
The guidance also pointed out that gift and entertainment expenses, standing alone, will rarely, if ever, form the basis for an enforcement action:
“DOJ's and SEC's anti-bribery enforcement actions have focused on small payments and gifts only when they comprise part of a systemic or long-standing course of conduct that evidences a scheme to corruptly pay foreign officials to obtain or retain business.”
The guidance goes on to provide examples of permitted activity, some of which are directly relevant to the kinds of gifts often associated with Chinese New Year. For example:
- Establishing a booth at a trade show which provides free pens, hats, t-shirts and other promotional items
- Taking government officials who are prospective customers out to drinks and paying a moderate bar tab
- Providing a “moderately priced crystal vase” to a foreign public official who is the General Manager of a client as a wedding gift and token of esteem.
Taken together, these general principles and examples limn in what should be a safe harbor of sorts when it comes to Chinese New Year gifts. As a threshold matter, they seem to recognize that traditional gift giving occasions are appropriate, even with foreign officials. After all, officials are people too and are entitled to the common courtesies and respects afforded anyone else. Second, they focus on low- or moderately-priced gifts, drinks and likely meals. No Rolexes wrapped around mooncakes. And finally, the gift should not be concealed. If it is truly just a holiday gift, there should be no need to hide or disguise it.
The FCPA criminalizes efforts to corruptly influence officials. Gifts given with the intent to recognize an important cultural custom and nothing more fall outside of it by definition. So what qualities should Chinese New Year gifts have to evidence their legitimate purpose and intent? The holiday reminds me of festive dragons parading through the streets, so keep these concepts in mind:
- Don't hide it
- Record it
- Account for it
- Gratitude or esteem
- Open and transparent
- Not too expensive
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhat to Know About the New 'Overlapping Directorship' Antitrust Development
4 minute readTurning Over Legal Tedium to AI Requires Lots of Unglamorous Work on Front End
6 minute readKhan Defends FTC Tenure, Does Not Address Post-Inauguration Plans
Best Practices for Adopting and Adapting to AI: Mitigating Risk in Light of Increasing Regulatory and Shareholder Scrutiny
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1JCPenney Customer's Slip-and-Fall From Bodily Substance Suit Best Left for a Jury to Decide, Judge Rules
- 2Products Liability: The Absence of Other Similar Claims—a Defense or a Misleading Effort to Sway a Jury?
- 3529 Accounts Are Not Your Divorce Piggybank
- 4Meta Hires Litigation Strategy Chief, Tapping King & Spalding Partner Who Was Senior DOJ Official in First Trump Term
- 5Courts Beginning to Set Standards for Evidence Relying upon Artificial Intelligence
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250