Economic Extortion and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
Author Summary: The government's categorical refusal to recognize an economic extortion defense to liability under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) lacks legal support and is unsound policy, particularly after the passage of the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA) and the rise of foreign autocracies. Businesses faced with threats of serious economic harm abroad should develop a record supporting extortion claims. The federal government should recognize those claims to avoid punishing victims of illegal foreign corruption. It can do so without diminishing the FPCA's ability to combat foreign corruption's harms.
October 07, 2024 at 01:00 PM
10 minute read
The federal government categorically refuses to recognize an economic extortion defense to liability under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), even while it recognizes an FCPA defense based on physical extortion. The distinction is unsupported by law and policy and must change, particularly in view of the recent passage of the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA) and the growing power of autocrats to destroy U.S. businesses through economic as well as physical extortion.
Legislative History and Interpretation of the FCPA's Extortion Defense
Payments made to foreign officials are punishable under the FCPA only if made "corruptly." The drafters of the FCPA recognized that extorted payments lack the requisite corrupt purpose, contrasting in the Senate Report accompanying the legislation (the "FCPA Senate Report") payments made as a price of "gaining entry into a market or to obtain a contract," which should not be shielded from FCPA liability because "at some point the U.S. company would make a conscious decision whether or not to pay a bribe," with payments made in "true extortion situations," which "should not be held to be made with the requisite corrupt purposes." S. Rep. 95-114 at 10. The drafters of the statute described "a payment to an official to keep an oil rig from being dynamited" as an example of an extorted payment that would not be corrupt. Id.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 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.
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: For Big Law Names, Shorter is Sweeter
- 3First Lawsuit Filed Alleging Contraceptive Depo-Provera Caused Brain Tumor
- 4The 'Biden Effect' on Senior Attorneys: Should I Stay or Should I Go?
- 5Elder Litigators Confront Tough Questions in Last Act of Careers
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