tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9004054568791616577.post8027550217545150946..comments2024-03-15T15:43:44.292+01:00Comments on Random Comments: How to Bribe a policemanDaniel Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01018311656329333870noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9004054568791616577.post-41454156572636473082017-08-28T00:47:48.903+02:002017-08-28T00:47:48.903+02:00From an email response by Ray Flynn, expert on Ant...From an email response by Ray Flynn, expert on Anti-corruption and Anti-bribery.<br /><br />Both the FCPA and the UK Bribery Act distinguish between large scale bribery and petty bribery. Under the FCPA small amounts paid to junior government officials, to move normal administrative things along, are considered ‘facilitation payments’, which are unlikely to be prosecuted. Although not the case with the driver, she would be highly unlikely to be pursued by US law enforcement because of the amount involved and the fact that the bribe was solicited. The official Guidance to the UKBA advises citizens to pay a bribe, and report it, if they feel that their freedom is at risk or if there is risk to ‘life and limb’. The driver could have argued that she feared being locked up had she opted to be brought to the police station, where she could have been accused of being ‘obstructive’. The Guidance makes it clear that a prosecution is highly unlikely under circumstances like this.<br /><br />In all cases, from petty bribery to larger scale corruption, the briber does a risk assessment, even if subconsciously, to decide that the benefit of paying the bribe outweighs the risks involved in being caught. The driver decided it was cheaper and (more importantly) less hassle to pay the policeman $20 and go home. Oderbrecht executives thought, for years, that they were immune from investigation and conviction, given the government officials they had in their pockets. I doubt that anyone involved in the US Asset Seizure Program fears being taken to task, especially as they have the law on their side, however unjust. Their actions are, undoubtedly, corrupt in certain cases, and the problem lies in there being a conflict of interests, which incentivises them to abuse their power for their own benefit, or maybe only for the benefit of the government. If this is the case, it could be considered an unjust tax, and there is plenty of that about! <br /><br />In nearly all cases of bribery, someone benefits personally and the public pays! The driver, for example, has deprived the Panamanian exchequer of $55, so that the policeman could benefit to the tune of $20, and maybe if all these ‘fines’ were paid officially there would be sufficient funds to pay the police more.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com