Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Airbus ran ‘massive’ bribery scheme to win orders

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 251 posts

Re: Airbus ran ‘massive’ bribery scheme to win orders

#231

Post by russdill »

perl4ever wrote: post #195
russdill wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually legal to pay someone a bride under FCPA, but only if they are already legally bound to carry out the task you are bribing them to do. The purpose of the bribe in this case is to "expedite" the service. https://globalanticorruptionblog.com/2014/06/17/the-fcpas-fa...

I'm not a lawyer much less an international one, but "obviously" there's a difference between a fee for expediting a request that is documented officially and one that is not. I think it would be unreasonable to call the former type a bribe. I recall that there is an option in the US to get your passport faster if you pay an extra fee, but it's not a fee that somebody random made up and they collect.

These are not official fees for expediting a request. They are commonly referred to as "grease payments" and are under the table payments.

Re: Airbus ran ‘massive’ bribery scheme to win orders

#233

Post by gdy »

jariel wrote: post #227
gdy wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you're IKEA and want to open a store in Moscow, you will pay x% of your revenue to a local 'businessman/thug'. If not - no store! So you wait a decade and realize you have no choice, and so you just pay the appropriate tributes." A link to the source would be appropriate.

There is a lot of public information about IKEA's woes in Russia, it's just the tip of the iceberg [1] [1] https://www.smh.com.au/world/corruption-halts-ikea-in-russia...

Yes, and I've read about the cases described by your link, however I haven't read anything about the case in the grandparent comment.

I'd call it bullshit, but that would be impolite.

Re: Airbus ran ‘massive’ bribery scheme to win orders

#234

Post by gdy »

sojournerc wrote: post #180
gdy wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Airbus is everything that is wrong with the corporate world." But it makes planes that don't crash like Boeings.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm Not exactly...

It doesn't say the reasons for the crashes, unfortunately.

Re: Airbus ran ‘massive’ bribery scheme to win orders

#235

Post by akho »

manquer wrote: post #120
akho wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That figure seems a bit low. So you have 535 members of Congress. Other govt officials (State, trade and aid agencies, ...) foreign powers have a legitimate interest in meeting probably brings that figure to a 1000. Congresspeople have aides, staff, &c — who also need to be dined. To maintain the whole show, you need to have your own staff — well-educated, worldly people — who need to be paid, need offices to work in…

Foreign governments have embassies and diplomatic staff for precisely this kind of work . Why do they need more than that ?

Diplomatic staff is very limited in number (because they have immunity, so the host country does not want it inflated too much). These kinds of jobs do not require immunity and can be done by non-diplomats.

Re: Airbus ran ‘massive’ bribery scheme to win orders

#236

Post by perl4ever »

naveensky wrote: post #218
perl4ever wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A company is inherently answerable to the public at large. No less than a government, it's a legal fiction that is enabled by the collective behavior of the public remaining consistent with its existence.

Just to be clear, are you talking about a publicly listed company or feel that every business, let's say a small grocery store as well is equally responsible. I feel a company is responsible to its customers and shareholders, that's about it.

I didn't use the exact word "responsible" which sounds ambiguous and maybe normative. I was trying to make a factual statement rather than a normative one. Even a small grocery store depends on abstract legal concepts having power which require public assent.

Re: Airbus ran ‘massive’ bribery scheme to win orders

#237

Post by perl4ever »

jariel wrote: post #221
perl4ever wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's reasonable to assume that because some companies were prosecuted under the statute(s) that they, or industry in general, engage in just as much activity as they would have unregulated.

Yes it is. It's a very natural thing for someone who has status to think that they should be able to cash in on that power. Everyone with responsibility is looking at a pile of money every day, all they have to do is reach out and grab some. And after all, they 'work hard' so why shouldn't they? (Is the internal logic they might use). Most businesses are commodities, it's hard to compete on price or anything else. It…

Ok, you disagree. But after writing "Yes it is", none of your following 8 sentences seem to support your opinion.

If someone is prosecuted and assumed guilty of a crime, then it proves that the law does not prevent the activity 100%. However, it also seems virtually certain that it prevents some of the crime.

If someone claimed that because people are arrested for murder all the time, the law(s) against murder have no effect, is that really serious? Or is it just the sort of thing people like to say, but everyone knows better?

If you make a statement and then don't support it, it creates the unfortunate appearance that you're not expressing sincere opinions, or if you are, that you won't explain where they come from.

Re: Airbus ran ‘massive’ bribery scheme to win orders

#239

Post by jariel »

gdy wrote: post #233
jariel wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lot of public information about IKEA's woes in Russia, it's just the tip of the iceberg [1] [1] https://www.smh.com.au/world/corruption-halts-ikea-in-russia...

Yes, and I've read about the cases described by your link, however I haven't read anything about the case in the grandparent comment. I'd call it bullshit, but that would be impolite.

If you don't have exposure to this kind of thing, all you need is a little imagination. Or try Kofi Annan [1]

[1] https://projekte.sueddeutsche.de/paradisepapers/politik/kofi...

Re: Airbus ran ‘massive’ bribery scheme to win orders

#240

Post by lonelappde »

Thorrez wrote: post #105
bobbydroptables wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Option 3: start jailing these fraudsters for criminal fraud. Jail corporate profits for 6 months. Claw back any and all executive pay since the fraud began and distribute it to low level employees or other victims of the fraud. If you can't survive as an honest company you don't deserve to survive. And there are very few people that give the government as many screws as executives to modify their behavior.

> Jail corporate profits for 6 months. It seems like they did more than 6 months. Their profits for the first half of 2019 were €2.53B[1], the fines for this were €3.6B. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/airbus-more-than-doubles-hal...

Profit is the wrong number. Executives and others took home pay during that time too.
Post reply on HN