FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog

November 7, 2013

Does Motive Matter in Anti-Bribery and Anti-Corruption Enforcement?

Do the intentions behind enforcement of domestic or international anti-corruption laws matter? Or is ‘the law the law’ and it really does not matter what a government’s motives are in enforcing laws that it has on the books. That question comes up for discussion from time-to-time. Some believe that motives and intentions do matter; others believe that enforcement of existing laws are motive and intention enough. This subject has been raised over the past several months in connection with the Chinese government and their anti-corruption enforcement efforts against western companies as exemplified by the GlaxoSmithKline PLC (GSK) enforcement action, announced last summer.

Trying to understand the motives of the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese government have long been a subject for Americans. China watchers have pontificated and speculated for many years. I am not sure that the true motives are ever clear to us westerners. But simply because we may not always understand them does not mean that we cannot consider them, particularly now that China is so opened up to western businesses which desire to garner a part of the market share in a country with the world’s largest population.

This subject was explored in a recent Financial Times (FT) piece, entitled “China: Red restoration”. The article began with a short discussion about a recent meeting held by the President of China, Xi Jinping, with several prominent leader of western businesses; including Mike Duke, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Wal-Mart, Indra Nooyi, Chairman and CEO of PepsiCo., Muhat Kent, Chairman and CEO of Coca-Cola, David Rubenstein, co-founder of The Carlyle Group, and Maurice Greenberg, the former Chairman and CEO of American International Group (AIG). As reported by the FT, President Xi told the group, “Your suggestions are a very important source of inspiration for the Chinese government.” The FT believes that this statement and others made by President Xi “were intended to signal that the world’s second largest economy remains open for business.”

Contrast that last statement with what has happened to GSK over the past several months. Company executives have been arrested or detained; passports have been pulled so that company executives could not leave the country; company executives have been paraded in front of state television cameras to confess wrongdoings; a high company official went to China and publicly apologized for the company’s conduct. All of this from a company that was already under a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) in the United States for fraudulent conduct in marketing certain pharmaceuticals. Moving it from a compliance to a business perspective, the FT noted that GSK “recently revealed that its medicine and vaccine sales had fallen 61 per cent in the third quarter from a year earlier”. Talk about taking it ‘in the wallet’.

However GSK is not the only company to come under Chinese regulatory scrutiny for allegations of bribery and corruption. Since July approximately 15 western companies have heard their corporate names listed as being under investigation. These companies range from other pharmaceuticals, to baby-food and formula companies, as well as others in health care and medical products and supplies. Beyond these anti-corruption investigations, other companies have felt the heat from Chinese regulators. Apple CEO Tim Cook was forced to publicly apologize over poor customer service and “to promise to improve customer services policies.” The German car manufacturer Volkswagen was required to recall over 380,000 vehicles in China after media reports surfaced that they were “unsafe”. Still other companies faced media criticism which led reduced sales. For instance, stories in the media surfaced about Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) and food safety issues which led to a 10 per cent slump in sales.

The FT article noted that there may be several motives for these actions against western companies. One is obviously a strain of nationalism which holds that such markets should belong to Chinese enterprises. Bao Dike, managing editor of the PKU Business Review, summed up this view when he was quoted as saying “they also show how China doesn’t need these foreign enterprises any more”. Kerry Brown, Professor of Chinese Politics at Sydney University, was quoted as saying, “Politically it is also a very easy populist move to beat up on foreign companies; much easier than taking on big Chinese companies and their powerful backers.”

Another motive might be what is termed “killing the chicken to scare the monkey.” Under this motivation, Chinese regulators are investigating western companies in order to send a message to the entire market about pricing and competition. The FT stated, “they intend to clean up things in order to provide quality products at reasonable prices in industries about which the public is concerned.” The Chinese public was certainly concerned about the prices it was paying for pharmaceutical products and one response may have been for the Chinese to investigate, in a very public way, GSK. The same holds true for the makers of baby-formula and milk-powder makers. Li Huafang, an independent economist and newspaper columnist, was quoted as saying “I actually think the new administration wants to strengthen regulations for both foreign and domestic businesses.” Or as Peter Gabriel might say “Shock the Monkey”.

The final motive discussed in the FT article was that of consolidation of power by the new President, Xi Jinping. Wang Lixiong, a prominent political writer, said that “The rough treatment of some foreign businesses stems from Mr. Xi’s need to establish his authority; to impose his will; this is a very common tactic among new rulers. We need to wait until he has consolidated power to see what his real intentions are.”

All of this tells me that western companies need to factor all of the above into their risk assessments when deciding whether to engage in business in China. This is a broader risk assessment than you would normally do for anti-corruption such as under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). This is a political risk assessment. But the key is that you look at your risks and measure them. The FT ends its article by noting that it appears that President Xi is still welcoming western businesses to China, and said, “As long as they can show that their investments and operations in China support or at least do not get in the way of efforts to garner support for the party and its leadership, they will probably be allowed to stay and even thrive.”

For a western company, from an anti-corruption perspective, this clearly means you need to investigate your Chinese operations now. If you detect problems, you should work expeditiously to remedy them now. The FT article makes clear that whatever the motivations of the Chinese regulators are; if you are in violation of Chinese domestic laws regarding bribery and corruption, your experiences could well be costly and the reputational damage immense.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2013


  1. I have always wondered how can one demostrate intentions?? specially when there are none.. “killing the chicken to scare the monkey” aptly fits the whole chinese FCPA buzz

    Comment by sangeetha — November 7, 2013 @ 7:46 am | Reply

  2. Interesting issue.

    Throughout the world, law enforcement authorities and the judiciary have limited resources.

    Thus, there has to be a bit of discretion exercised when determining which regulatory cases to investigate and, where appropriate, sanction (civilly or criminally).

    That being said, one would have to be naive to ignore the role politics takes in pursuing particular cases. Why Khodokovsky was convicted of paying a bribe, but no one was convicted of accepting it is an illustrate of the extent of the rule of law in Russia.

    Indeed, there are reasons why the friends and relatives of officials throughout the world are hired for particular jobs.

    Perhaps if a country who is a member of the WTO and uses its bribery and corruption laws for reasons of protectionism, this is an area to watch,

    Comment by Ethan S. Burger — November 8, 2013 @ 3:12 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: