RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      미국의 해외부패방지법과 다국적 기업: 외국공무원의 개념을 중심으로 = FCPA`s Legacy for Multinational Corporations: Foreign Officials Can Come in Many Guises

      한글로보기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      Scholars and practitioners alike have criticized the SEC`s and DOJ`s enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) as overly aggressive. Although dormant for years since its passage in 1977, in the last decade the FCPA (generally prohibiting the making of a corrupt payment to a foreign official for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business) has been vigorously enforced against US companies and citizens as well as foreign entities. Due to the fact that most of the enforcement actions have resulted in pleas, settlements, or NPA/DPAs, FCPA law for many years developed largely through private negotiations between the SEC/DOJ and the company, and therefore almost wholly outside the judicial process. Commentators have opined that the absence of judicial scrutiny is troubling, particularly given the so-called dubious legal theories put forth by the enforcement agencies. They have pointed out, in particular, that the enforcement agencies` definition of foreign official is overly broad as it includes employees of state-owned or state-controlled enterprises. This Article argues that employees of such entities should, under certain circumstances, come under the FCPA and that courts (which addressed this issue only in the past two years) have appropriately allowed flexibility in the determination of whether someone is a foreign official. The government`s nuanced interpretation of who can be designated a foreign official for purposes of the Act is necessary in light of the the broad aims of the statute.
      번역하기

      Scholars and practitioners alike have criticized the SEC`s and DOJ`s enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) as overly aggressive. Although dormant for years since its passage in 1977, in the last decade the FCPA (generally prohibiting...

      Scholars and practitioners alike have criticized the SEC`s and DOJ`s enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) as overly aggressive. Although dormant for years since its passage in 1977, in the last decade the FCPA (generally prohibiting the making of a corrupt payment to a foreign official for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business) has been vigorously enforced against US companies and citizens as well as foreign entities. Due to the fact that most of the enforcement actions have resulted in pleas, settlements, or NPA/DPAs, FCPA law for many years developed largely through private negotiations between the SEC/DOJ and the company, and therefore almost wholly outside the judicial process. Commentators have opined that the absence of judicial scrutiny is troubling, particularly given the so-called dubious legal theories put forth by the enforcement agencies. They have pointed out, in particular, that the enforcement agencies` definition of foreign official is overly broad as it includes employees of state-owned or state-controlled enterprises. This Article argues that employees of such entities should, under certain circumstances, come under the FCPA and that courts (which addressed this issue only in the past two years) have appropriately allowed flexibility in the determination of whether someone is a foreign official. The government`s nuanced interpretation of who can be designated a foreign official for purposes of the Act is necessary in light of the the broad aims of the statute.

      더보기

      참고문헌 (Reference)

      1 Stephanie Clifford, "Wal-Mart’s US Expansion Plans Complicated by Bribery Scandal" N.Y. Times 2012

      2 Aruna Viswanatha, "Wal-Mart seen facing sizable fines in U.S. bribery probe"

      3 Christopher M. Matthews, "Wal-Mart FCPA Probe Grows,” The Wall St. Journal, (Nov. 15, 2012), available at http://blogs.wsj.com/corruption-currents/2012/11/15/wal-mart-fcpa-probe-grows/ Yinzhi Miao, “Oversea Listing and State-Owned-Enterprise Governance in China: the Role of the State"

      4 David Barstow, "Vast Mexico Bribery Case Hushed Up by Wal-Mart After Top-Level Struggle" The N.Y. Times 2012

      5 Alberto Gonzalez, "United States: the Impact of the new FCPA Guidance on Reform Efforts"

      6 "US v. Alcatel-Lucent, S.A., Case No. 10-20907 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2010)"

      7 "U.S. v. Carson et al., No. 09-77 (C.D. Ca. May 18, 2011)"

      8 Mike Koehler, "The Story of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act" 73 (73): 2012

      9 "The Guidance Press Conference"

      10 Mike Koehler, "The Façade of FCPA Enforcement" 41 (41): 2010

      1 Stephanie Clifford, "Wal-Mart’s US Expansion Plans Complicated by Bribery Scandal" N.Y. Times 2012

      2 Aruna Viswanatha, "Wal-Mart seen facing sizable fines in U.S. bribery probe"

      3 Christopher M. Matthews, "Wal-Mart FCPA Probe Grows,” The Wall St. Journal, (Nov. 15, 2012), available at http://blogs.wsj.com/corruption-currents/2012/11/15/wal-mart-fcpa-probe-grows/ Yinzhi Miao, “Oversea Listing and State-Owned-Enterprise Governance in China: the Role of the State"

      4 David Barstow, "Vast Mexico Bribery Case Hushed Up by Wal-Mart After Top-Level Struggle" The N.Y. Times 2012

      5 Alberto Gonzalez, "United States: the Impact of the new FCPA Guidance on Reform Efforts"

      6 "US v. Alcatel-Lucent, S.A., Case No. 10-20907 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2010)"

      7 "U.S. v. Carson et al., No. 09-77 (C.D. Ca. May 18, 2011)"

      8 Mike Koehler, "The Story of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act" 73 (73): 2012

      9 "The Guidance Press Conference"

      10 Mike Koehler, "The Façade of FCPA Enforcement" 41 (41): 2010

      11 David Barstow, "The Bribery Aisle: How Wal-Mart Got Its Way in Mexico" The N.Y. Times 2012

      12 Susan Rose-Ackerman, "TRANSPARENCY AND BUSINESS ADVANTAGE: THE IMPACT OF IN-TERNATIONAL ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICIES ON THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL INTEREST" 67 (67): 2012

      13 John Ashcroft, "THE RECENT AND UNUSUAL EVOLUTION OF AN EXPANDING FCPA" 26 (26): 2012

      14 Paul Rose, "State Capitalism and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act" 73 (73): 2012

      15 DOJ press release, "Siemens AG and Three Subsidiaries Plead Guilty to Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Violations and Agree to Pay $450 Million in Combined Criminal Fines"

      16 "Recent Cases, Foreign Companies Dominate New Top Ten"

      17 Eric J. Smith, "RESOLVING AMBIGUITY IN THE FCPA THROUGH COMPLIANCE WITH THE OECD CONVENTION ON BRIBERY OF FOREIGN PUBLIC OFFICIALS" 27 (27): 2012

      18 Cyavash Nasir Ahmadi, "REGULATING THE REGULATORS: A SOLUTION TO FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT WOES" 11 (11): 2012

      19 Douglas N. Greenburg, "Prosecutors Without Borders: Emerging Trends In Extraterritorial Enforcement" 2011

      20 United States v. Nguyen, "No. 2:08-cr-00522"

      21 Edward Luce, "Lunch with the FT: Zbigniew Brzezinksi"

      22 "Letter from Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Sen. Chris Coons to Att’y Gen. Eric Holder, U.S. Dept. of Justice"

      23 "Lamb v. Phillip Morris, Inc., 915 F.2d 1024 (6th Cir. 1990)"

      24 Lanny A. Breuer, "Keynote Address to The Tenth Annual Pharmaceutical Regulatory and Compliance Congress and Best Practices Forum"

      25 Shearman, "FCPA Digest"

      26 Evan Osnos, "Boss Rail The Disaster that Exposed the Underside of the Boom" The New Yorker 2012

      27 Christopher M. Matthews, "Asia Pacific Companies Not Prepared for FCPA/UK Bribery Act"

      28 Nora M. Rubin, "A Convergence of 1996 and 1997 Global Efforts to Curb Corruption and Bribery in International Business Transactions: the Legal Implications of the OECD Recommendations and Convention for the United States, Germany, and Switzerland" 14 (14): 1998

      29 United States v. Esquenazi, "1:09-cr-21010"

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

      학술지 이력

      학술지 이력
      연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
      2027 평가예정 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
      2021-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
      2018-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2015-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2014-10-27 학술지명변경 외국어명 : 미등록 -> Journal of hongik law review KCI등재
      2011-01-01 평가 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
      2010-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2008-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
      더보기

      학술지 인용정보

      학술지 인용정보
      기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
      2016 0.59 0.59 0.61
      KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
      0.6 0.59 0.693 0.42
      더보기

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼