Ir para o menu de navegação principal Ir para o conteúdo principal Ir para o rodapé
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Artigos

v. 10 (2023): Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito

Análisis exploratorio de las enforcement actions de la foreign corrupt practices act de Estados Unidos: las motivaciones detrás del soborno y su utilidad para potenciar su prevención en los negocios

DOI
https://doi.org/10.19092/reed.v10.800
Enviado
dezembro 12, 2022
Publicado
2024-02-02

Resumo

La presente investigación tiene por objeto analizar el soborno en las transacciones económicas internacionales mediante el estudio de casos, en particular, de una serie de enforcement actions ejecutadas en cumplimiento de la Foreign Corrupt Practices Act de Estados Unidos durante los años 2011 y 2022. Para tales efectos se siguió un enfoque de investigación exploratorio, centrado en responder las siguientes preguntas: ¿Qué es lo que motiva el ofrecimiento de sobornos en el ámbito de la obtención y mantención de negocios en las transacciones económicas internacionales? ¿Qué distinciones relevantes se pueden hacer para comprender mejor este fenómeno? A partir del resultado del estudio de casos se proponen una serie de categorías cuyo análisis puede propender a fomentar la capacidad de prevención de este ilícito por parte del sector privado, en la medida que se facilita la identificación de actividades o procesos riesgosos y posibles mecanismos para su control.

Referências

  1. Artaza, O. (2022). Una “estrategia restaurativa” en el ámbito de la responsabilidad penal de personas jurídicas: Una aproximación teórica. Derecho PUCP, (88), 125-153. http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8453-5069
  2. Asociación Española de Normalización. (2017). Sistemas de gestión de compliance penal. Requisitos con orientación para su uso. Madrid: Asociación Española de Normalización.
  3. Barrington, R. (2022). Learning from Bribery Case Studies. In R. Barrington et al. (Eds.), Understanding Corruption. How Corruption Works in Practice (pp. 87-92). Nueva York: Columbia University Press.
  4. Benson, M., Madensen, T., & Eck, J. (2009). White-Collar Crime from an Opportunity Perspective. In S. Simpson & D. Weisburd (Eds.), The Criminology of White-Collar Crime (pp. 175-194). Nueva York: Springer.
  5. Biegelman, M., & Biegelman, D. (2010). Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Compliance Guidebook. Protecting Your Organization from Bribery and Corruption. Nueva Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
  6. Burger, E., & Holland, M. (2006). Why the Private Sector is Likely to Lead the Next Stage in the Global Fight Against Corruption. Fordham International Law Journal, 30(1), 45-74. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj/vol30/iss1/2
  7. Carloni, E., & Cantone, R. (2022). Limits of Corruption Repression and New Prevention Policies. In R. Barrington et al. (Eds.), Understanding Corruption. How Corruption Works in Practice (pp. 5-24). Nueva York: Columbia University Press.
  8. Carloni E., & Gnaldi, M. (2022). Preventing Corruption in Europe: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. In R. Barrington et al. (Eds.), Understanding Corruption. How Corruption Works in Practice (pp. 1-4). Nueva York: Columbia University Press.
  9. Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, & Enforcement Division of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. (2020). A Resource Guide to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Second edition. https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/file/1292051/download
  10. Fernández, V. (2006). Introducción a la investigación en Ciencias Sociales. DITS, (3). https://upcommons.upc.edu/bitstream/handle/2117/501/Introducci%C3%B3n%20a%20la%20investigaci%C3%B3n%20en%20ciencias%20sociales.pdf
  11. Gottschalk, P. (2022). The Convenience of Corporate Crime. Financial Motive-Organizational Opportunity-Executive Willingness. Boston: De Gruyter.
  12. Hess, D. (2005). Combating Corruption in International Business: The Big Questions. Ohio North University Law Review, (1286). https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/113261/1286_Hess.pdf?sequence=1
  13. Hess, D., & Dunfee, T. (2000). Fighting Corruption: A Principled Approach; The C2 Principles (Combating Corruption). Cornell International Law Journal, 33(3), 593-626. http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cilj/vol33/iss3/6
  14. Hess, D. & Dunfee, T. (2003). Taking Responsibility for Bribery. The Multinational Corporation’s Role in Combating Corruption. In R. Sullivan, & M. Robinson (Eds.), Business and Human Right. Dilemmas and Solutions (pp. 260-271). Londres: Routledge.
  15. International Organization for Standardization. (2016). International Standard ISO 37001. Anti-bribery Management Systems – Requirements with Guidance for Use.
  16. Lord, N. (2014). Regulating Corporate Bribery in International Business. Anti-Corruption in the UK and Germany. Londres: Routledge.
  17. Lord, N., Van Wingerde, K., & Campbell, L. (2018). Organising the Monies of Corporate Financial Crimes via Organizational Structures: Ostensible Legitimacy, Effective Anonymity, and Third-Party Facilitation. Administrative Sciences, 8(2), 1-17.
  18. Lu, T. (2013). The “Obtaining or Retaining Business” Requirement: Breathing New Life into the Business Nexus Provision of the FCPA. Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, 18(3), 729-750. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1370&context=jcfl
  19. Manacorda, S. (2014). Towards an Anti-Bribery Compliance Model: Methods and
  20. Strategies for a “Hybrid Normativity”. In S. Manacorda, F. Centonze, & G. Forti (Eds.), Preventing Corporate Corruption. The Anti-Bribery Compliance Model (pp. 3-30). Nueva York: Springer.
  21. Mantovani, M. (2014). The Private Sector Role in the Fight Against Corruption. In S. Manacorda, F. Centonze, & G. Forti (Eds.), Preventing Corporate Corruption. The Anti-Bribery Compliance Model (pp. 35-42). Nueva York: Springer.
  22. McGowan, F. (2022). Odebrecht, Corporate Bribery and Political Corruption. In R. Barrington et al. (Eds.), Understanding Corruption. How Corruption Works in Practice (pp. 55-64). Nueva York: Columbia University Press.
  23. Meyer, B., Van Roomen, T., & Sikkema, E. (2014). Corporate Criminal Liability for Corruption Offences and the Due Diligence Defence. A Comparison of the Dutch and English Legal Frameworks. Utrecht Law Review, 10(3), 37-54. DOI: 10.18352/ulr.283
  24. Muravska, J. (2014). How to Bribe: A Typology of Bribe-Paying and How to Stop It. Londres: Transparency International UK. https://www.transparency.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf/publications/How_to_Bribe-_A_Typology_of_Bribe_Paying_and_How_to_Stop_It_0.pdf
  25. Nieto, A. (2008). La responsabilidad penal de las personas jurídicas: Un modelo legislativo. Madrid: Iustel.
  26. Nieto, A. (2014). Internal Investigations, Whistle-Blowing, and Cooperation: The Struggle for Information in the Criminal Process. In G. Forti, S. Manacorda, & F. Centonze (Eds.), Preventing Corporate Corruption. The Anti-Bribery Compliance Model (pp. 69-92). Nueva York: Springer.
  27. Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos. (2020). 2019 Enforcement of the Anti-Bribery Convention. Investigations, Proceedings, and Sanctions. https://www.oecd.org/daf/anti-bribery/OECD-Anti-Bribery-Convention-Enforcement-Data-2020.pdf
  28. Osuagwu, L. (2012). Conceptualization of Corruption in Business Organizations. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 2(5), 18-25. http://www.aijcrnet.com/journals/Vol_2_No_5_May_2012/3.pdf
  29. Rabl, T., & Kühlmann, T. (2009). Why or Why Not? Rationalizing Corruption in Organizations. Cross Cultural Management, 16(3), 268-286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527600910977355
  30. Rose-Ackerman, S., & Palifka, B. (2016). Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and Reform. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
  31. Shoultz, I., Flyghed, J. (2020). From “We Didn’t Do It” to “We’ve Learned Our Lesson”: Development of a Typology of Neutralizations of Corporate Crime. Critical Criminology, 28, 739-757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-019-09483-3
  32. Shipley, T. (2022). Bribery Cases Studies. Alstom and Corporate Bribery. In R. Barrington et al. (Eds.), Understanding Corruption. How Corruption Works in Practice (pp. 45-55). Nueva York: Columbia University Press.
  33. Simpson, S., & Piquero, N. (2022). “Low Self-Control, Organizational Theory, and Corporate Crime. Law & Society Review, 36(3), 509-548.
  34. Stenberg, J. (2015). The Basics of Corruption Risk Management. A Framework for Decision Making and Integration into the Project Cycles. https://www.u4.no/publications/the-basics-of-corruption-risk-management-a-framework-for-decision-making-and-integration-into-the-project-cycles.pdf
  35. Teichmann, F. (2018). Anti-Bribery Compliance Incentives. Journal of Financial Crime, 25(4), 1105-1110. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-09-2017-0081
  36. Trahan, A. (2011). Filling in the gaps in culture-based theories of organizational crime”. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology, 3 (1), 89-109.
  37. Transparency International. (2015). Anti-Corruption Helpdesk. Providing On-Demand Research to Help Fight Corruption. Corruption Risk Assessment and Management Approaches in the Public Sector. https://knowledgehub.transparency.org/assets/uploads/helpdesk/Corruption_risk_assessment_and_management_approaches_in_the_public_sector_2015.pdf
  38. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2020). State of Integrity. A Guide on Conducting Corruption Risk Assessments in Public Organizations. Viena: United Nations. https://www.unodc.org/documents/corruption/Publications/2020/State_of_Integrity_EN.pdf
  39. United States Department of Justice. (2011). United States of America V. Uriel Sharef, Herbert Steffen, Andres Truppel, Ulrich Bock, Eberhard Reichert, Stephan Signer, Carlos Sergi, and Miguel Czysch. Indictment. Recuperado el 21 de noviembre de 2022, de https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-fraud/legacy/2011/12/16/2011-12-12-siemens-ndictment.pdf
  40. United States Department of Justice. (2012). United State of America against Oz Africa Management GP, LLC. Plea Agreement. Recuperado el 21 de noviembre de 2022, de https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/899316/download
  41. United States Department of Justice. (2013). United States of America V. Dmitry Firtash, Andras Knopp, Suren Gevorgyan, Gajendra Lal, Periyasamy Sunderalingam, K.V.P. Ramachandra Rao. Indictment. Recuperado el 21 de noviembre de 2022, de https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-fraud/legacy/2014/04/03/df_indictment_final_stamped_6-20-13.pdf
  42. United States Department of Justice. (2015a). United State of America v. Lawrence Hoskins. Third Superseding Indictment. Recuperado el 21 de noviembre de 2022, de https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/file/1223636/download
  43. United States Department of Justice. (2015b). United State of America v. Roberto Enrique Rincon-Fernández, Abraham José Shiera-Bastidas. Indictment. Recuperado el 21 de noviembre de 2022, de https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/file/878961/download
  44. United States Department of Justice. (2016a). United States of America v. Latam Airlines Group S.A. Deferred Prosecution Agreement. Recuperado el 21 de noviembre de 2022, de https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/file/879136/download
  45. United States Department of Justice. (2016b). United State of America v. Ng Lap Seng and Jeff C. YIN. Superseding Indictment. Recuperado el 21 de noviembre de 2022, de https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/file/913286/download
  46. United States Department of Justice. (2016c). United State of America against Odebrecht S.A. Plea Agreement. Recuperado el 21 de noviembre de 2022, de https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/919916/download
  47. United States Department of Justice. (2016d). United State of America v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries LTD. Deferred Prosecution Agreement. Recuperado el 21 de noviembre de 2022, de https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/file/920436/download
  48. United States Department of Justice. (2016e). United States v. VimpelCom Ltd. Deferred Prosecution Agreement. Recuperado el 25 de noviembre de 2022, de https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/file/828301/download
  49. United States Department of Justice. (2018a). United State of America against José Tomás Meneses. Information. Recuperado el 21 de noviembre de 2022, de https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/file/1367036/download
  50. United States Department of Justice. (2018b). United Stated of America Plainiff v. Petros Contoguris, a/k/a, Petros Contoguris-Troemel, Vitaly Leshkov, Azat Martirossian, a/k/a, Azar Martirosyan. Superseding Indictment. Recuperado el 21 de noviembre de 2022, de https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/file/1067366/download
  51. United States Department of Justice. (2018c). United States of America V. Joseph Baptiste and Roger Richard Boncy. Superseding Indictment. Recuperado el 21 de noviembre de 2022, de https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/file/1109781/download
  52. United States Department of Justice. (2018d). Petróleo Brasileiro S.A.- Petrobras. Non-Prosecution Agreement. Recuperado el 21 de noviembre de 2022, de https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1096706/download
  53. United States Department of Justice. (2019. United States of America V. Mark T. Lambert. Second Superseding Indictment. Recuperado el 21 de noviembre de 2022, de https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/file/1520306/download
  54. United States Department of Justice. (2020a). United States of America v. Raul Gorrin Belisario, Claudia Patricia Díaz Guillen and Adrian José Velasquez Figueroa. Superseding Indictment. Recuperado el 21 de noviembre de 2022, de https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/file/1346691/download
  55. United States Department of Justice. (2020b). United States v. Vitol Inc. Deferred Prosecution Agreement. Recuperado el 25 de noviembre de 2022, de https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1342896/download
  56. United States Department of Justice. (2021). United States of America against Amec Foster Wheeler Energy Limited. Deferred Prosecution Agreement. Recuperado el 21 de noviembre de 2022, de https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1411296/download
  57. United States Department of Justice. (2022). United States of America v. Glencore LT. Plea Agreement. Recuperado el 21 de noviembre de 2022, de https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/file/1508931/download
  58. United States Securities and Exchange Commission. (2011). Elek Straub, Andras Balogh, and Tamas Morvai. Complaint. Recuperado el 21 de noviembre de 2022, de https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2011/comp22213-ex.pdf
  59. United States Securities and Exchange Commission. (2014). In the Matter of Layne Christensen Company. Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings. Recuperado el 21 de noviembre de 2022, de https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2014/34-73437.pdf
  60. United States Securities and Exchange Commission. (2015a). In the Matter of Walid Hatoum. Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings. Recuperado el 25 de noviembre de 2022, de https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2015/34-74112.pdf
  61. United States Securities and Exchange Commission. (2015b). In the Matter of Mead Johnson Nutrition Company. Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings. Recuperado el 21 de noviembre de 2022, de https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2015/34-75532.pdf
  62. United States Securities and Exchange Commission. (2018). In the Matter of the Dun & Bradstreet Corporation. Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings. Recuperado el 21 de noviembre de 2022, de https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2018/34-83088.pdf
  63. United States Securities and Exchange Commission. (2019). In the Matter of Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation. Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings. Recuperado el 21 de noviembre de 2022, de https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2019/34-85149.pdf
  64. United States Securities and Exchange Commission. (2020). In the Matter of Novartis Ag. Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings. Recuperado el 21 de noviembre de 2022, de https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2020/34-89149.pdf
  65. United States Securities and Exchange Commission. (2022). In the Matter of Tenaris S.A. Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings. Recuperado el 21 de noviembre de 2022, de https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2022/34-95030.pdf
  66. Warin, F., Falconer, C., & Diamant, M. (2010). The British Are Coming!: Britain Changes Its Law on Foreign Bribery and Joins the International Fight Against Corruption. Texas International Law, 46(1), 1-72. https://www.gibsondunn.com/wp-content/uploads/documents/publications/WarinFalconerDiamant-ComprehensiveReviewOfUKBriberyAct-TXLJ-1-11.pdf

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.