Will 'The Galt' go to jail?

[ThaiHome]

Agree. I haven't seen anything from TH that backs up his claim that the FCPA only applies to businesses. If you check any of the websites on the FCPA, there are very clear that it applies to U.S. nationals - full stop.

 

 

I never said it only applies to businesses. I said there had to be a business reason. I can only assume you don't know the difference or your reading comprehension has fallen to new lows.

TH

[chuckwoww]

Gaddie is one that brought the FCPA into this and will not admit he is wrong. He continues to twist words, misquote, and use strawman arguments in order to keep from having to admit that all his posts about this, culminating with the scary one on being meet at a US airport and put into handcuffs was totally wrong.

 

TH

 

Thanks for the explanation. I was beginning to think Galt or Wade had been caught slipping backhanders to the Thai judiciary. That would certainly add a new dimension to the discussion.

 

[ThaiHome]

Odd it applies only to business, surely should cover non business. In this case both bloke's in business, the need to link to business seemed a very broad definition.

 

No, it’s not odd if you understand the history of the law. This came about due some scandals from the late 1970’s where some 400 US corporations were found to have paid foreign officials in order to secure contracts (lookup Lockheed bribery scandal). It was found that though disgraceful, and some notable US corporation officers did resign, there were no actual laws that could be applied when the foreign subsidiary of a US corporation paid bribes. Though the foreign officials could be prosecuted in their countries, there was no way to legally go after the US companies in the US.

 

Hence the FCPA was enacted in 1977 to cover that loophole. For many years this did put US companies at a severe disadvantage in many locations. Today, most western countries have signed up to UN treaties that are similar to the US’s FCPA. Amazingly enough, even Italy has outlawed the practice.

 

This has always been about business and not individuals paying bribes for non-business reasons. I don’t see that ever being outlawed. How would it look if some NGO do-gooder is charged in some African country with “spying†and the only way to get him out is to quietly payoff the judge? The US government is then going to arrest him when he arrives in the US to a heroes welcome?

 

TH

[CTO]

Thanks on the history - I would still think that bribery anywhere if illegal at home would be illegal elsewhere.

 

Only ever one clear case of bribery in a project I worked on - turns out the western employee had told his bosses he had to pay a bribe.

 

In fact no bribe paid - the employee paid himself

 

[rchapstick]

As far as international incidents go, in my estimation, the whole affair would have been filed in the 'who gives a fuck?' bin ages ago, that is if anyone at the embassy gave a fuck to review it were it called to their attention in the first place.

 

[buddha]

ChuckWoww: "I was beginning to think Galt or Wade had been caught slipping backhanders to the Thai judiciary. That would certainly add a new dimension to the discussion."

 

Chuck I'm almost certain that this was strongly implied several times as if someone had knowledge of it. I'm too lazy to re-read the mountain of posts to confirm. Stickman went on record to thwart that implication and the poster stopped making the claim. That's when gaddie jumped in and presented the possibility of US legislative action.

 

Still waiting for the Galt to start spouting again. There is no way on buddha's green earth he will remain silent through this.

[buffalo_bill]

I believe so far the only mentioning of possible bribery has been undertaken by Galt/Summers on his website assuming there are local officials being under the influence of cash paid by his opposition . A truely phantastic idea to put this on a website as a local resident .

[chuckwoww]

Chuck I'm almost certain that this was strongly implied several times as if someone had knowledge of it. I'm too lazy to re-read the mountain of posts to confirm. Stickman went on record to thwart that implication and the poster stopped making the claim. That's when gaddie jumped in and presented the possibility of US legislative action.

 

Still waiting for the Galt to start spouting again. There is no way on buddha's green earth he will remain silent through this.

 

Yes that's how it was. And it snowballed from there into a major international incident.

 

Galt should keep his mouth shut. Because a few hundred people read his website he probably thinks he has an army of supporters.

 

As for the future Wade and Stick may want to see him in jail or driven out of Thailand but my guess is the Thai judges are fed up with the whole business.

 

[Gadfly]

TH,

 

There is no reason for insults; please keep this civil.

 

As to the business nexus argument you are now raising, take at look at Kaye vs. U.S. If you cannot find it on the web, take a look at the FCPA website. As you will see, the 5th Circuit - the only circuit to look at the issue - says it doesn't mean much.

 

More important, a property developer is suing Galt for criminally defaming him. If there was bribery - and I am certainly not the one who claimed this - I cannot see how this possibly is not a crime under the DOJ's interpretration of the FCPA. Take a look at the DOJ website on the FCPA - their position is clear.

 

It's hard to imagine someone - here, a property developer about whom Galt apparantly posted disparging comments about his biz practices - persuading a U.S. Judge that the bribing a Thai judge was not illegal because there wasn't a business nexus. Doesn't even pass the smile test.

 

But you and your alter egos think otherwise. Fine, but you need to be honest and civil about it.

 

The fundamenatl issue here is that Farangs are playing with fire when they try to resolve this sort of dispute in the local judicial system. The FCPA is not the only reason why this is so, but it is a damn compelling reason to avoid this sort of nonsense.

[ozpharlap]

As to the business nexus argument you are now raising, take at look at Kaye vs. U.S. If you cannot find it on the web, take a look at the FCPA website. As you will see, the 5th Circuit - the only circuit to look at the issue - says it doesn't mean much.

 

With respect, I don't think the case said that at all, in fact, it clearly states that the business nexus test is a mandatory test to invoke a prosecution under the legislation.

 

Quoting from the case, as follows:

 

"Our in-depth investigation of one factor’s – the business nexus test’s – applicability to a specific action, out of a total of seven factors that define illegal bribery under the FCPA, was not an extension of the Act’s terms but rather an interpretation and application of its meaning to the facts of the case. A person of common intelligence should have been reasonably aware of this meaning in the 1990’s. Paying taxes and customs duties is inherent to foreign business, and decreasing these payments through bribery, as Defendants have admitted, was common practice in Haiti. If bribery to obtain favorable tax and customs obligations was indeed as common as established in the record, then it is reasonable to imply that businesses viewed these practices as one of the only guarantees of maintaining a successful business in Haiti in the 1990’s. It is not therefore a novel application of the law for the district court to find that Defendants made these payments for the purpose of “retaining business.â€Â

 

IMO it merely states that in most cases the business connection does not require rocket science, and sticks out like the proverbial dog balls. In the Kaye case IMO it was a novel application, even if the court said it was not, but the fact remains, the business nexus test has to be founded before a conviction may be recorded.

 

Also, the case was not argued in the Supreme Court, thus the decision based on the business nexus interpretation of the facts, well, IMO the jury is still out on that point.

 

However, in relation to this thread topic, IMO to establish a business nexus test in the alleged bribery scenario in a purported criminal defamation case is not as easy. To protect someones business reputation (and I am not saying, nor is there any implication of any alleged bribe taking place), well, it's a long shot, who knows.