Gadfly Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 We're all speculating here, and others - well before I brought up the FCPA issue - suggested, implied and hinted (actually, came close to saying) that improper influence had been employed in the underlying case. You are absolutely right that the FCPA discussion is based on those suggestions and hints. Whether those suggestions and hints have any merit is a completely different discussion, and I don't intend to participate in that discussion. But, others having made those suggestions and hints, I think the FCPA angle is a fascinating one because it shows how events in Thailand can have unforeseen and rather dramatic consequences elsewhere. Thailand is no stranger to FCPA prosecutions. The Greens are scheduled to be sentenced on 17 December. I don't feel comfortable describing or even quoting what they were convicted of, but if you want to know, just click on the link to the FCPA blogsite. It's a fascinating story. It's also a hot issue right now. In this week's edition of The Economist you will find this: "The two American agencies responsible for enforcing the FCPA, the Department of Justice (DoJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission, have both made clear their intention to be even fiercer under the new administration than they were under the previous one." Actually, not just those two agencies - the FCPA blogsite reports that the FBI has a dedicated team to FCPA cases now, and that they are operating outside of the U.S. to collect evidence (take a look at some of the documents filed in the Green case, and try to imagine how the US could have possibly collected some of the most damning evidence without having someone listening in, and able to prepare a verbatim transcript of (say, from a wire or tape), some rather delicate discussions.) And it's not just the U.S. that is prosecuting these types of cases now. Anyway, my fundamental take on this whole case is that it is crazy for two Farangs to duke out a dispute like this in a Thai court. And I am certainly not the first one here to make that observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddha Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 I would like to see a wade vs. galt no holds barred fight followed by a stickman vs. galt fight on a subsequent occasion. Perhaps this could be held at the pink panther or other establishment that has an on the fly boxing ring set up. This would be great entertainment and proceeds [tickets] could be donated to a worthy cause. In fact I strongly urge KS to consider this as a way to end board conflicts forthcoming. Imagine how lively the friday night meetings would be if posters could square off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 I would like to see a wade vs. galt no holds barred fight followed by a stickman vs. galt fight on a subsequent occasion. I'd settle for an online debate...maybe even a Skype conference... but I'm not holding my breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 zimmerframes at dawn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo_bill Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Settling conflicts with assistance of lawyers and such are clear signs of a degenerating society ; gentlemen of elegance meet at midnight on pistols , probably in the sub-soi leading to Lolita's . Nuff said . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozpharlap Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Settling conflicts with assistance of lawyers and such are clear signs of a degenerating society ; gentlemen of elegance meet at midnight on pistols , probably in the sub-soi leading to Lolita's . Nuff said . On pistols? I think we now now of your fetish, not that there is anything wrong with that ... each to their own devices Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shygye Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 [color:green]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.[/color] Did you even read my post? I quoted the legislation directly. It clearly covers only "domestic corporations", ie, USA based companies. It is the individuals acting as an agent for said domestic corporation that are subject to criminal penalties. The law does not apply to corporations that have no USA presence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozpharlap Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Hmmmm, my understanding is that the legislation applies to a domestic concern. The term "domestic concern" means-- (A) any individual who is a citizen, national, or resident of the United States; and ( any corporation, partnership, association, joint-stock company, business trust, unincorporated organization, or sole proprietorship which has its principal place of business in the United States, or which is organized under the laws of a State of the United States or a territory, possession, or commonwealth of the United States. However, there is a requirement for a business nexus. I pasted the relevant section on page 22 of this thread, please correct me if you think I posted the wrong provision. Mind you, I would have thought the use of the word "or" rather then "and" is more precise. It appears that from my reading you would have to be both (a) and ( ... but I am not an expert on interpretation of USA legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gadfly Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Oz is right. It applies to US nationals. (Actually, about 37 other countries, including, I suspect, the countries where many of the members of this forum reside, have laws similiar to the US's FCPA based on the OECD Convention.) Oz is also right about the legislation referring to a business nexus. But every commentor on this law says that very little is required to meet the business nexus test (at least as far as the courts have interpreted the FCPA - more about that later.) Others, including, notably, TH who disagrees with me on whether the FCPA would apply, have posted factual information establishing a business nexus. Based on the commentary thus far, I think those facts, if true, would be sufficient to satisfy the DOJ's view of the necessary business nexus. I could be wrong about this. The US Chamber of Commerce thinks the decision in US vs Kay - the highest ruling thus far on this issue - is wrong and wants to challenge this in the US Supreme Court. Maybe they will prevail. But who want to chance it? The precedent know says the test is met. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gadfly Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 The last sentence should read: "The precedent now says the test is met." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.