How To Make Hundreds Of Millions Without Even Trying

Bertel Schmitt
by Bertel Schmitt

Last week, we shared with you an ingenious method of the U.S. Department of Justice to contribute to the deficit-afflicted holdings of the U.S. Treasury. The method involves shaking down foreign companies who grease the wheels to get deals in even more foreign lands. Or who even think about greasing the wheels. Caught between European laws and U.S. laws, these companies pay and promise to sin no more.

Last week, Germany’s Daimler agreed to pay $185m to settle charges brought by the U.S. Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Financial Times went through the proceedings and found out that the lawyers at the D.O.J. devised a clever method that turns a European rule into a steady stream of cash for the U.S. government. Writes the FT:

“A close look at hundreds of pages of court records show that the maker of Mercedes-Benz was never formally charged with paying bribes, though two of its subsidiaries were.”

“Instead, it was charged with conspiracy to commit bribery – an allegation that is usually reserved for defendants who plan, but do not execute, crimes – and a violation of “books and records provisions” of a US anti-bribery law.”

“Having entered into a “deferred prosecution agreement”, Daimler did not plead guilty to any charges, including the lesser conspiracy charge.”

This may sound like a technicality only lawyers can get excited about. However, the generous payment got Daimler off the hook with the European Union. EU rules forbid any company from receiving an EU contract if it has been found guilty or convicted of bribery.

This wouldn’t just have removed Mercedes Benz cars from European motorcades. Daimler is a major shareholder of EADS, a company that dabbles in such gadgetry as the Airbus, the Ariane rocket, the Eurocopter, the Eurofighter, and other expensive toys.

The mere idea of losing that business turns European companies into putty in the hands of D.O.J lawyers. And the money is rolling in:

Just last month, BAE Systems, the British defense group, paid $400m in fines to the DoJ. Again, BAE was not charged with bribery. They pleaded guilty to allegations of making false statements about their anti-bribery compliance program.

Likewise, the DoJ’s case against Siemens in 2008, that brought in $800m in penalties, hinged on “books and records” violations.

Even if the D.O.J. lack evidence of criminal intent, even if a pay-off is considered, but never committed, these “books and records” violations can turn into a goldmine. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) contains a “books and records provision” that requires companies to record “facilitation payments” on their books. Companies often find themselves in the position of being obliged by U.S. law to keep accurate accounts of something that is illegal in their home country. In other words: Avoidance of self-incrimination is a crime. However, these books and records boo-boos don’t count as bribery in the EU. Says the FT:

“Companies with deep pockets can afford steep penalties. But the severe consequences they face in Europe and sometimes the US if they are found guilty of actual bribery might be insurmountable, giving the DoJ a strong hand in negotiations.”

D.O.J. lawyers never explicitly threaten that companies should settle for lesser allegations in order to avoid bribery charges. Company attorneys quickly make that suggestion and work out a deal.

And how do the D.O.J. and the S.E.C. get jurisdiction? Not via U.S. shell companies, or U.S. accounts, as it has been surmised. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung lifted that secret: If your stock is listed at a U.S. stock exchange, then they’ve got you.

The practice not only turned into a steady stream of income for the U.S. Treasury. It spawned a whole industry of corporate compliance consultants, that teach lax European corporations to stay clear of the long arm and the greedy hands of the U.S. law.

Bertel Schmitt
Bertel Schmitt

Bertel Schmitt comes back to journalism after taking a 35 year break in advertising and marketing. He ran and owned advertising agencies in Duesseldorf, Germany, and New York City. Volkswagen A.G. was Bertel's most important corporate account. Schmitt's advertising and marketing career touched many corners of the industry with a special focus on automotive products and services. Since 2004, he lives in Japan and China with his wife <a href="http://www.tomokoandbertel.com"> Tomoko </a>. Bertel Schmitt is a founding board member of the <a href="http://www.offshoresuperseries.com"> Offshore Super Series </a>, an American offshore powerboat racing organization. He is co-owner of the racing team Typhoon.

More by Bertel Schmitt

Comments
Join the conversation
4 of 7 comments
  • W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
Next