Microsoft is using illegal bribes in the Middle East and Africa(lioness.co)
lioness.co
Microsoft is using illegal bribes in the Middle East and Africa
https://www.lioness.co/post/microsoft-is-using-illegal-bribes-in-the-middle-east-and-africa-why-is-the-sec-turning-a-blind-eye
196 comments
Many years ago (15+ years ago), I worked for a company that wanted to sell some software product to China. Now, you can't legally use bribes where I am, "the EU says NO". What you can do is hire a Chinese consulting company, they will invoice you a surprisringly high amount for their services and take some of that money and use it to grease the wheels of the Chinese bureaucracy. At least at that point in time, it was basically required to win any sort of contract on that level in China.
Microsoft using bribes in Africa, the Middle East or parts of Asia isn't a Microsoft problem, it a problem that those specific countries need to deal with. Microsoft would most likely have made their sales anyway, if bribes hadn't been a thing, it would just be slightly cheaper to do so, so I don't think management at Microsoft cares one way or the other.
Microsoft using bribes in Africa, the Middle East or parts of Asia isn't a Microsoft problem, it a problem that those specific countries need to deal with. Microsoft would most likely have made their sales anyway, if bribes hadn't been a thing, it would just be slightly cheaper to do so, so I don't think management at Microsoft cares one way or the other.
> Now, you can't legally use bribes where I am, "the EU says NO". What you can do is hire a Chinese consulting company, they will invoice you a surprisringly high amount for their services and take some of that money and use it to grease the wheels of the Chinese bureaucracy.
Just so y'all know, people have been convicted for international bribery in the US using "arms-length" consultants. This has been called out in every ethics training I've had to take since like 2004.
Just so y'all know, people have been convicted for international bribery in the US using "arms-length" consultants. This has been called out in every ethics training I've had to take since like 2004.
Every year I’m forced to watch training videos saying that it’s against US laws to be involved in bribery abroad. As I understand it, there’s severe federal penalties for briberies committed abroad. It may not be a Microsoft problem exclusively, but I can’t imagine “hey everyone else is breaking the law” is going to work as a defense.
It's the same in the EU, hence the "consulting" companies. Don't get to hung up on the fact that you know the money is going towards a bribe, because legally you didn't do it, nor did you technically ask anyone else to do it. All you did was hire a company that understand the local business culture and they helped facilitate the contract.
We even had a visiting member of the EU parliament and the CEO directly asked about this scenario. The PM argued that it wasn't ideal, but that it was part of doing business with, in this case, China. Technically, yeah you know, legally, just don't have the word bribe in the contract with the consultants.
We even had a visiting member of the EU parliament and the CEO directly asked about this scenario. The PM argued that it wasn't ideal, but that it was part of doing business with, in this case, China. Technically, yeah you know, legally, just don't have the word bribe in the contract with the consultants.
The "arms-length consulting" is absolutely illegal in the US, I'm surprised that it doesn't seem to be that way for the EU.
Based on those trainings I also have to take yearly, the US has a weird carve out for "facilitation payments" that are basically just bribes to cut through red tape and delays that probably exist just to extract bribes in the first place. But I do remember the training calling out using a third party intermediary to launder your bribes isn't a defense and you're suppose to be responsible for how your money is used. I suspect the later isn't well enforced though but I couldn't say.
It’s stupid complicated, but essentially right. The legality of facilitation depends on the laws of all the jurisdictions involved. So where it’s legal and customary, say, in Egypt or whatever, I think, you can get away with it. Because how else would you get anything done?
[deleted]
It is.
I guess people just don't know that that it's just as illegal, or feel it's less objectionable than paying bribes directly. Or they speculate that it's harder to prove.
I guess people just don't know that that it's just as illegal, or feel it's less objectionable than paying bribes directly. Or they speculate that it's harder to prove.
I think they know, or at least see that it's an issue, but what are they suppose to do? Either they stay out of a large number of countries, which seriously hamper their options for expansion or they speculate in it being hard to prove.
It also create an uneven playing field. Western countries can't do business in large part of the world, while companies from those same countries are free to sell anywhere.
It also create an uneven playing field. Western countries can't do business in large part of the world, while companies from those same countries are free to sell anywhere.
You don't have a god-given right to run your business in every country in the world, especially when the manner in which you are doing so breaks the law of the countries you are headquartered in.
If you did, sanctioned countries wouldn't be a thing.
'I want to make money' isn't some kind of first, last, or sole moral consideration, overriding all others.
If you did, sanctioned countries wouldn't be a thing.
'I want to make money' isn't some kind of first, last, or sole moral consideration, overriding all others.
Should western countries be able to use slave labor outside the west?
These training programs are there so the company can check a box, have plausible deniability, and so low ranking employees don’t do something stupid that exposes the company.
Yes, I had to watch the same videos when I worked for BigCo.
It's obvious though that the problem is getting caught. If bribery is endemic, then you pay both the corporate bribe costs and the "not-getting-caught" bribe costs
It's obvious though that the problem is getting caught. If bribery is endemic, then you pay both the corporate bribe costs and the "not-getting-caught" bribe costs
No, this isn't Microsoft simply "paying the cost of business", this is Microsoft tolerating its own employees stealing millions for themselves on the excuse that their other corrupt practices brings in business.
Yes, this is Microsoft (or its employees) siphoning public funds from corrupt governments that those societies sorely need.
Those funds are lost regardless. There's no action that Microsoft or any other Western company can take that would do anything but leave them with a slightly cleaner conscience. As long as corruption is accepted those funds will never be directed towards schools, hospitals or infrastructure anyway.
It's a shitty argument, I'll grant you that, but it's not a problem that Microsoft can fix. They should take the moral high ground, but the money was always going to be siphoned of.
It's a shitty argument, I'll grant you that, but it's not a problem that Microsoft can fix. They should take the moral high ground, but the money was always going to be siphoned of.
So the money should go to a local construction company to “build affordable houses” that will never get built or buy cheap computers with a 300% markup? Without systematically changing the culture in these countries corruption is never going to go away and no one has proved the FCPA has moved the needle anywhere.
It doesn't matter if the country has corruption problems on it's own, we shouldn't be party to that, and we shouldn't facilitate or encourage it by doing business with them. That's the whole point of these laws.
Why is that a given? It ultimately results in our adversaries like China or Prigozhin who are willing to pay bribes getting the resources. Or even other European countries who barely enforce these laws. So American companies are forced to be at a disadvantage and no actual bribery is prevented.
You realize that both parties in bribing are corrupt? This is not only people in middle east breaking the law, it also requires that people in the US are willing to commit fraud.
Saying it is fine when Americans bribe in foreign countries is saying it is fine if Americans are corrupt.
Saying it is fine when Americans bribe in foreign countries is saying it is fine if Americans are corrupt.
It's gonna be tough for the West to try and use their sway over multinationals to stop this kind of behavior overseas when they can't even stop it at home. Not that they shouldn't try to do both, but there are limits to what can be achieved in this area.
It's absolutely a Microsoft problem that they don't take a moral stand on bribing.
They don't take a moral stand on a lot of things. Most of the large companies in the world are deeply immoral, but we draw the line at bribing, in a culture that encourages it?
I'd argue that it's a WTO problem, let's just cut of all ties to countries where bribing in any form is acceptable, leaving us with what? The Nordic countries and New Zealand?
I'm not arguing that it's not an issue, but what would you have them do exactly? The bribing isn't going to disappear because Microsoft says no. Africa will just be running on Red Star OS and Tecent Cloud.
I'd argue that it's a WTO problem, let's just cut of all ties to countries where bribing in any form is acceptable, leaving us with what? The Nordic countries and New Zealand?
I'm not arguing that it's not an issue, but what would you have them do exactly? The bribing isn't going to disappear because Microsoft says no. Africa will just be running on Red Star OS and Tecent Cloud.
Microsoft is an American company, so the US can just forbid Microsoft from paying bribes.
Just like the US is using their clout to force people around the world to eg force French companies not to do business with Iran.
> I'd argue that it's a WTO problem, let's just cut of all ties to countries where bribing in any form is acceptable, leaving us with what?
As a compromise, you could target countries in which bribing is de jure _legal_, and worry about de facto later.
Just like the US is using their clout to force people around the world to eg force French companies not to do business with Iran.
> I'd argue that it's a WTO problem, let's just cut of all ties to countries where bribing in any form is acceptable, leaving us with what?
As a compromise, you could target countries in which bribing is de jure _legal_, and worry about de facto later.
>>US can just forbid Microsoft from paying bribes.
That's already the case. It's already illegal for an American company to pay bribes abroad, even if it's "legal" there. The problem is that like many other people said - you just hire a local "consulting" business that handles that for you and your hands are clean.
That's already the case. It's already illegal for an American company to pay bribes abroad, even if it's "legal" there. The problem is that like many other people said - you just hire a local "consulting" business that handles that for you and your hands are clean.
> The problem is that like many other people said - you just hire a local "consulting" business that handles that for you and your hands are clean.
Just make that illegal, too? And make sure that ignorance is not an excuse before the law. (Something like gross negligence, if you don't check on your subcontractors well enough.)
Just make that illegal, too? And make sure that ignorance is not an excuse before the law. (Something like gross negligence, if you don't check on your subcontractors well enough.)
I wonder how much the citizens of a country rife with low-level corruption would appreciate the US taking the high road and refusing to allow their companies to do business with them.
That's what's already happening with a few countries around the world.
Morale in a for-profit company is a virtual concept, it simply does not exist in reality. Claiming it does is likely delusionary or an attempt to hide the truth.
You are implying that running a for-profit company is immoral. Of course you can run a for-profit company in moral and ethical way!
Then it's a for-profit-and-some-other-things. And when there is more than one owner those other things better be defined in a legally binding way or else.
No, yoou can't. Claiming otherwise is pretty naive.
Teach me, please... What is immoral if you open your Limited company and sell your programming services to some customers and make profit doing it?
Make it economically bad times, and the customer a shady actor. Will the company deliberately close and stop offering its services, despite needing to put food on the table? Or will the company just go along and do the coding for shady customer?
Now, put a lot of air in that thought-baloon and you will see how basically every for-profit will end up doing immoral things.
Now, put a lot of air in that thought-baloon and you will see how basically every for-profit will end up doing immoral things.
You are wrong! Not every for-profit will end up doing immoral things in this case! Some will move on to do other stuff...
Most people in the developed world are all immoral according this argument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTsfzLTBuo0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTsfzLTBuo0
"no ethical consumption under capitalism" is a saying for a reason
"Morals" in any organization large enough for responsibility to be sufficiently diffuse is a virtue statement. Every large organization will sociopathically and amorally advance its KPIs. It just so happens that some organizations are in or adjacent to morals as part of their core business hence why the church comes out looking a little better than Monsanto.
Your argument works just as well for any other company or organisation.
The worst morale failures in history have been perpetrated by governments.
The worst morale failures in history have been perpetrated by governments.
All this recent talk of "banning AI work for the sake of the economy" (perhaps when they're fully competitive with human-equivalent workers across all multidisciplinary domains) has had me thinking the money will just go to international consulting firms or independent contractors that can then use the AI tools as they wish.
That's why people need to start thinking of these issues globally, not in terms of what "their country" can do
That's why people need to start thinking of these issues globally, not in terms of what "their country" can do
I had to take some training at work on not doing exactly that. I guess the regulators are on to the little scam.
So hold the company liable for its subcontractors' violations. This isn't rocket surgery.
> use it to grease the wheels of the Chinese bureaucracy.
"Facilitating payments" aka "grease payments" are explicitly allowed in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
This article is about actual, real bribery, which is illegal under the FCPA.
"Facilitating payments" aka "grease payments" are explicitly allowed in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
This article is about actual, real bribery, which is illegal under the FCPA.
Company "fasttracked" worker visas to china, are basically olympic sport visas etc. reassigned for a bribe.
The article isn’t so much about Microsoft paying bribes to grease the wheels as it is about Microsoft employees skimming money from the contract.
Sorry, but democracy is not automaticcally a guarantee that there is no corruption. I can tell, because I am living in a supposedly democratic country which has gained quite a number of points in the corruption-index recently...
The comment you replied to said the opposite. They said:
> You need a rule of law, to tame corruption and no non-democracy has that.
As far as I can tell, that implies the only combination that's impossible is non-democracy and non-corruption. Ie all non-democracies are corrupt, but some democracies might also be corrupt.
Btw, I don't think that's even true: British ruled Hong Kong had rule of law, but no democracy.
However statistically, there seems to be at least a weak correlation (negative) between corruption and democracy.
> You need a rule of law, to tame corruption and no non-democracy has that.
As far as I can tell, that implies the only combination that's impossible is non-democracy and non-corruption. Ie all non-democracies are corrupt, but some democracies might also be corrupt.
Btw, I don't think that's even true: British ruled Hong Kong had rule of law, but no democracy.
However statistically, there seems to be at least a weak correlation (negative) between corruption and democracy.
Without democracy the rule of law itself is corrupt.
Can you elaborate? To me this makes no sense whatsoever, and I can easily provide a counter example. Islam is not democratic in the Western sense, yet its laws curb corruption.
Democracy leads to better government in general, which leads to reduced corruption. People in Islamic countries accurately think their countries are corrupt: https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022
Correlation vs causation. Those Islamic countries are still facing occupation especially from post WWI mandates like Sykes Picot and Balfour, and we see first hand the interest of "democratic" countries to keep things that way to ensure their superiority by force. They are not letting things take their natural course.
What definitions of democracy, rule of law and corruption are you using here?
As long as contracts are being upheld, and court decisions are speedy and predictable, and public officials don't enrich themselves, that counts as low / no corruption, doesn't it?
Democracy might help with that ideal, but it's by no means strictly necessary.
As long as contracts are being upheld, and court decisions are speedy and predictable, and public officials don't enrich themselves, that counts as low / no corruption, doesn't it?
Democracy might help with that ideal, but it's by no means strictly necessary.
Rule of law in a non-democratic polity inherently benefits its rulers more than other citizens. That is legally-enforced corruption.
What definition of corruption are you using here?
As far as I can tell, an absolute monarchy that is run for the benefit of the ruler can still have rule of law and low corruption.
As an alternate history example, take Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore, but make him king and increase his salary to 1 billion SGD per year (instead of 1 million SGD per year). Change nothing else.
They would still be one of the least corrupt countries on earth, and have a judiciary that enforces the rule of law.
> Rule of law in a non-democratic polity inherently benefits its rulers more than other citizens.
That can and does happen in democracies, too.
As far as I can tell, an absolute monarchy that is run for the benefit of the ruler can still have rule of law and low corruption.
As an alternate history example, take Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore, but make him king and increase his salary to 1 billion SGD per year (instead of 1 million SGD per year). Change nothing else.
They would still be one of the least corrupt countries on earth, and have a judiciary that enforces the rule of law.
> Rule of law in a non-democratic polity inherently benefits its rulers more than other citizens.
That can and does happen in democracies, too.
That's no different than if the president of the US used his power to acquire money. The only difference is that in Singapore the law itself has been corrupted to allow it.
Corruption, and even corrupt laws, exist in democracies too, but in a non-democracy all laws are inherently corrupt. Non-democracies have no legitimate basis for even having laws.
Corruption, and even corrupt laws, exist in democracies too, but in a non-democracy all laws are inherently corrupt. Non-democracies have no legitimate basis for even having laws.
What makes democracies magically more legitimate?
There is the ability of the population to organize and vote out and and all corrupt influence. Usually the citzenry is kept down via media and culture, but as several revolutions have shown, the old culture can get thrown out hard and fast, if the population has enough.
I believe the time of revolutions is actually gone. We've reached a point where the comfort we're enjoying in the west is baasically preventing revolutionary change. Because even though there might be things you dont like about the system you are in, overall, with social security, a health care system that mostly works (sorry USA, I am not talking about you, death penalty and all) vmost people prefer the status quo over whatever revolution you might imagine.
The older I get the harder it is to not see Pareto was right about democracy.
"Pareto believed that societies are ruled by an elite class, which he called the "circulation of elites." In his view, these elites are able to gain and maintain power by using their wealth, intelligence, and social connections to influence political and economic institutions. Pareto saw democracy as a way to redistribute power and wealth from the elite to the masses, but he was skeptical that this could ever be achieved in practice. He argued that even in democracies, power tends to be concentrated in the hands of a small group of people who are able to control the political process and manipulate public opinion."
I am not sure what the argument really is against that. That sounds like the reality we live in.
"Pareto believed that societies are ruled by an elite class, which he called the "circulation of elites." In his view, these elites are able to gain and maintain power by using their wealth, intelligence, and social connections to influence political and economic institutions. Pareto saw democracy as a way to redistribute power and wealth from the elite to the masses, but he was skeptical that this could ever be achieved in practice. He argued that even in democracies, power tends to be concentrated in the hands of a small group of people who are able to control the political process and manipulate public opinion."
I am not sure what the argument really is against that. That sounds like the reality we live in.
You’re undermining your point by calling it “supposedly”. You’re otherwise not wrong, though.
Well no true Scotsman and so on.
Even in old and established democracies, there's usually a large gap between what is said of the democracy, and what the democracy actually is and does.
Even in old and established democracies, there's usually a large gap between what is said of the democracy, and what the democracy actually is and does.
That was my cynism. Democracy seems to be used as a wildcard to say "we are the good people" awfully lot recently, which gets my attention.
Yeah, but when your argument is that $BAD_THING still occurs in a democracy (which it certainly does), then it doesn’t help if you weaken that to a “supposed” democracy, because then the counterargument is that it wouldn’t happen in a real democracy. Whereas your aim is to argue that (real) democracy isn’t a panacea.
Point taken. Thanks for correcting me and actually taking the time to understand what I was really trying to say. And thanks for the very appropriate word suggestion. "democracy isn’t a panacea" is indeed a very concise way of stating what I wanted to say.
> Behind the thin layer of paint, the old culture and world continus happily on unphased by the hysterics
For instance:
I've always thought it was really funny when westerners adopted the belief that Benazir Bhutto was some enlightened champion of democracy and progress while remaining blissfully ignorant of the historical position of vast wealth and power her family occupies in Sindh.
For instance:
I've always thought it was really funny when westerners adopted the belief that Benazir Bhutto was some enlightened champion of democracy and progress while remaining blissfully ignorant of the historical position of vast wealth and power her family occupies in Sindh.
Inside “democratic” countries, they are just bribing via legal means - see lobbying.
Yes. Sadly yes. But its not spread societywide. You do not bribe your way out of law enforcement etc. You do not have that society wide tax on just "breathing" - yet. There is also not yet, the worst kind of corruption, were incompetence in education gets through and enshrined to entrench other corrupt incompetence and finally destroys the mechanism to dislodge incompetence.
Were a visit to the doctor might kill you, because they all got their diploma because they know the same family and never spent a day awake and sober in university. And the health minister is from that family. And the whole anti-corruption self-repair mechanism is dysfunct, cause its married to that familys cousin.
Were a visit to the doctor might kill you, because they all got their diploma because they know the same family and never spent a day awake and sober in university. And the health minister is from that family. And the whole anti-corruption self-repair mechanism is dysfunct, cause its married to that familys cousin.
Well, maybe you don’t bribe directly by handing money over to an LEO. But I would say there is still tons of corruption that is based on influence, soft skills,
knowing right people, donations to specific charities/political parties.
>You do not bribe your way out of law enforcement etc.
Don't you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_or_gra...
Don't you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_or_gra...
In the US at least, FOPs (social organizations / quasi union most police belong to) sell “donor cards” that specifically can be shown to grant favors similar to those one would be eligible in bribable countries.
[deleted]
There are certainly many bad things happening this way, but it's a far cry from the undeniably clear transaction structures of "those in control of formalities will block everything forever unless the inofficial tax is paid as well"
So when EFF raises funds to petition elected officials to protect privacy that’s bribery?
Because thats what lobbying is.
Because thats what lobbying is.
Lobbying has a veneer of legitimacy, but it is mostly for bribing.
But bribery is illegal.
So i dobt understand what people mean when they say “lobbying is legal bribery”.
Please explain
So i dobt understand what people mean when they say “lobbying is legal bribery”.
Please explain
Yes, they do. But not everyone does it! Better not to do business at all than to be part of bribing!
After growing to a certain size, you just don't not do business. Because if you don't to some businesses, your competitors will, and then they'll outgrow you and force you out of the market.
I'm not siding with Microsoft here or any other business, just stating that this is how things are. I mean, of course, there could be many other ways, but this carries the least risk for the business.
I'm not siding with Microsoft here or any other business, just stating that this is how things are. I mean, of course, there could be many other ways, but this carries the least risk for the business.
Honestly, most of them do it.. not even because they want to, but because it's expected on the other end.
I've been in contract negotiations where the purchase of industrial equipment is contingent upon prostitutes and trips to DisneyWorld.
Of course we don't want to pay for these things, but if you don't, they just give the contract to someone who will.
I've been in contract negotiations where the purchase of industrial equipment is contingent upon prostitutes and trips to DisneyWorld.
Of course we don't want to pay for these things, but if you don't, they just give the contract to someone who will.
On the last point, I must be missing something obvious, but why don't those workers who have their passports taken report them lost/stolen and get a new one from their embassy?
Because their job is tied to company owned by the citizen of the host country who employs them (their visa sponsor), and they're probably sending money back home to India, Pakistan or Bangladesh to support a family of eight people. You report that and cause a legal fuss with your employers, you not only don't get paid your previous month of work, you get deported and banned from the UAE or Qatar or Saudi Arabia for life.
It is illegal to confiscate an employee's passport in the UAE. If it happens, it doesn't make it legal.
The police in UAE are not there to help Indian people get their passports returned... and I suspect it would be incredibly dangerous to start complaining to them; your only reason to be there is to work, cheaply and shut up. You are a second class citizen and it’s unbelievably naive to start sticking your head above your station. You’ll be telling them they should start a union next!
Western expats might be second class citizens in the UAE, with some luck. As a worker from India in the UAE, you are far treated far below a second class citizen, sadly.
Shockingly enough a lot of things are illegal in the UAE and yet they're extremely commonplace.
how ironic to say that in a post about illegal bribes
So we have an individual that has travelled overseas to earn more money than he would be able to make at home, to better support his family. That is not a slave and calling it slavery cheapens actual slavery IMO.
Now, having said that, the conditions are appalling and the employers do many unscrupulous and illegal things. But it is a voluntary arrangement unlike slavery.
Now, having said that, the conditions are appalling and the employers do many unscrupulous and illegal things. But it is a voluntary arrangement unlike slavery.
The workers have often had to pay huge fees to brokers to score the job in the first place, often including taking out large loans that must be paid back with the job's income.
On arrival, the worker realizes that everything they have been told is a lie. Their passport is confiscated and they are told that, if they try to run away to their embassy etc, goons will go to their family to extort the money owed for the loans by any means necessary, including torture and death.
Would you still call this a "voluntary arrangement"?
On arrival, the worker realizes that everything they have been told is a lie. Their passport is confiscated and they are told that, if they try to run away to their embassy etc, goons will go to their family to extort the money owed for the loans by any means necessary, including torture and death.
Would you still call this a "voluntary arrangement"?
> Would you still call this a "voluntary arrangement"?
Perhaps not for the first guy to ever fall for this. But existing workers are still communicating with the folks back home, so prospective new workers now what to expect and what to believe and not to believe.
I agree that they aren't treated well; but we can't ignore that the situation back home is often even worse.
Perhaps not for the first guy to ever fall for this. But existing workers are still communicating with the folks back home, so prospective new workers now what to expect and what to believe and not to believe.
I agree that they aren't treated well; but we can't ignore that the situation back home is often even worse.
There are a lot of poor villages in Pakistan or Nepal, a lot of brokers, a lot of different lies to tell and a lot of suckers born every minute. And, of course, there's the odd village boy who beats the odds, strikes it rich (often by getting into a position where he can exploit others, eg as a labor broker), builds a big-ass house and becomes inspiration for others to follow in his footsteps.
No, especially the element of having goons back home to coerce the family sounds like actually slavery. I double check these days. Westerners try to make charity cases out of people from the developing world that are just trying to make a buck like we all do.
Voluntary arrangements require informed consent. These workers are denied that and their options to leave are limited.
> Yes, they do. They all do. You need a rule of law, to tame corruption and no non-democracy has that.
Contrary to common belief, corruption does not have much to do with democracy. There are many non-democratic countries without corruption, and many democratic countries with corruption (and the inverse too for both).
The relation is that, currently, a high standard of living leads both to less corruption and to more democracy.
Contrary to common belief, corruption does not have much to do with democracy. There are many non-democratic countries without corruption, and many democratic countries with corruption (and the inverse too for both).
The relation is that, currently, a high standard of living leads both to less corruption and to more democracy.
> You need a rule of law, to tame corruption and no non-democracy has that.
Old British-ruled Hong Kong arguably had rule of law and no democracy.
Old British-ruled Hong Kong arguably had rule of law and no democracy.
Western Countries promote and protect corruption in the rest of the world. Where does the corruption money go? Where do the corrupt people and their families live after they are removed from power for whatever reason?
As opposed to the legal bribery in democracy, it turns into an oligarchy, it always does. This is known to be true in the past and observable truth in the present.
HK (pre~2020) had and Singapore has rule of law.
Doesn't democracy simply institutionalize corruption?
Where is the incentive for honesty or long term thinking for politicians or political candidates?
The politician's primary concern is to win the next election. Promises of any sort can be fielded to win this battle. Ideally his promises should motivate voters to support his campaign. After the election, excuses can be made. The opposition offers an easy scapegoat for not delivering upon previous promises.
While in office, the politician has every incentive to milk his position for all it is worth. He doesn't personally have a stake in the country's budget. The politician is driven to drive funds towards his donors. His only time preference is to make it happen before his term expires. Long term results of policies or contracts are besides the point.
After spending considerable time in 3rd world countries, my takeaway is that corruption in the developed world is simply more expensive. Yes, you can legally lobby for your company to receive gov. contracts. The difference is that you need to pay expensive lawyers to execute the process. You can't just simply throw a few hundred dollars around or ask your brother-in-law.
There's a right way to lobby in the west and a wrong way, which is tabooed as corruption. The end result is much the same. The difference is often partisan perception.
Where is the incentive for honesty or long term thinking for politicians or political candidates?
The politician's primary concern is to win the next election. Promises of any sort can be fielded to win this battle. Ideally his promises should motivate voters to support his campaign. After the election, excuses can be made. The opposition offers an easy scapegoat for not delivering upon previous promises.
While in office, the politician has every incentive to milk his position for all it is worth. He doesn't personally have a stake in the country's budget. The politician is driven to drive funds towards his donors. His only time preference is to make it happen before his term expires. Long term results of policies or contracts are besides the point.
After spending considerable time in 3rd world countries, my takeaway is that corruption in the developed world is simply more expensive. Yes, you can legally lobby for your company to receive gov. contracts. The difference is that you need to pay expensive lawyers to execute the process. You can't just simply throw a few hundred dollars around or ask your brother-in-law.
There's a right way to lobby in the west and a wrong way, which is tabooed as corruption. The end result is much the same. The difference is often partisan perception.
This is actually particularly bad. They followed company policy and pointed out the compliance issues but Microsoft did not reprimand the employee involved and instead promoted them into a position that they could more easily evade accountability and also punish the person that had drawn attention to compliance issues.
It gets worse as they are put on a performance improvement plan (PIP), even though they have 18 years of experience and presumably had no significant performance issues up until this point.
If the information about corruption within the post is true, Microsoft undoubtedly deserve to pay a significant fine, but unfortunately:
It gets worse as they are put on a performance improvement plan (PIP), even though they have 18 years of experience and presumably had no significant performance issues up until this point.
If the information about corruption within the post is true, Microsoft undoubtedly deserve to pay a significant fine, but unfortunately:
> What is a shock: This time around, the SEC and DOJ
> have both declined to investigate Microsoft over
> the same types of bribes in the Middle East and
> Africa. They acknowledged my evidence (which I
> submitted three times) yet did not take up the
> case, claiming that the current pandemic has
> prevented them from gathering more evidence from
> abroad—even though I have already provided
> documentation that I believe shows Microsoft is in
> breach of the 2019 agreement and is still
> participating in corrupt business practices in
> direct violation of U.S. law.
Only europeans people with no contact with non-europeans believe the rest of the world works the same way as we do.
If you want to do anything in those regions, bribes should be part of your budget, all the way down.
Even the workers that need to travel to those places should have a budget for those bribes, as in some places even the police will try to get you in trouble if you don't give them money, or in some African countries, even food is accepted.
If you want to do anything in those regions, bribes should be part of your budget, all the way down.
Even the workers that need to travel to those places should have a budget for those bribes, as in some places even the police will try to get you in trouble if you don't give them money, or in some African countries, even food is accepted.
>europeans people with no contact with non-europeans
I think you mean 5-10 countries in Western, Northern Europe right? Most of Europe is rife with corruption on every level and always has been.
I think you mean 5-10 countries in Western, Northern Europe right? Most of Europe is rife with corruption on every level and always has been.
How do you explain that the author apparently had no trouble closing large contracts without bribing?
Seems there was lots of bribery going on all the time, he just didn't know about it, didn't take part in it himself:
> many employees younger than me, in lower positions, were driving luxury cars and purchasing homes
and it took until this event, for him to start connecting the dots:
> the partner in the deal [...] had been terminated four months earlier for poor performance on the sales team, and corporate policy prohibits former employees from working as partners
> many employees younger than me, in lower positions, were driving luxury cars and purchasing homes
and it took until this event, for him to start connecting the dots:
> the partner in the deal [...] had been terminated four months earlier for poor performance on the sales team, and corporate policy prohibits former employees from working as partners
I didn’t get the impression that there was any bribery going on in the deals he closed himself. Even if he only became aware of that after the fact, he’d have mentioned that more explicitly. Instead, he argues that he was fired despite very good performance, and it would be hypocritical if that performance was only made possible by bribes. So I don’t think this adds up.
I knew a guy who had some business to do with a Government office in an African country. Specifically he was trying to get GIS data for a certain region. He met with the local branch of the concerned department and got nowhere for a while with the excuse that all their systems were old and slow and he didn't have the right signatures anyway. He looked around the office, agreed the computers were all super old, offered to replace them all, and after that suddenly the remaining signatures were not important anymore. He supplied about ten PCs and he got the data he was looking for.
In the case of Microsoft, Europe is not that different:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_licensing_corruption...
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/hungary-subsidiary-microsoft-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_licensing_corruption...
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/hungary-subsidiary-microsoft-...
Even if your point is granted it does not account for Microsoft employees stealing from Microsoft.
[deleted]
I wonder if the department of justice is going to launch the same enthusiastic corruption investigations they used to massively fine foreign competitors of American companies. \s
If you think this is shocking, wait until you dig into the history of US and UK weapons sales (and ongoing highly paid contractor support) to the Saudi military and "police" forces.
Software licensing bribery and kickbacks are peanuts and crumbs on the floor by comparison.
A great deal of it is justified under the concept that because they're definitely not on good terms with the mullahs in Qom, anyone opposed to the Iranian ayatollahs as a regional power must be our friend, right?
Software licensing bribery and kickbacks are peanuts and crumbs on the floor by comparison.
A great deal of it is justified under the concept that because they're definitely not on good terms with the mullahs in Qom, anyone opposed to the Iranian ayatollahs as a regional power must be our friend, right?
I worked on a program for a foreign military sale to a Middle East country and learned a lot like every foreign company had to pay someone to get ahead at all. It’s crazy to me this is news. It’s literally impossible to do business there without bribes. The USAF didn’t knoww and we had to work hard to hide the money used for that purpose. We lost part of a lucrative contract because of a rival defense company bribing a different prince.
> the history
You dont need to go beyond yesterday for history. The foreign aid budget for example is litteral bribery with a less icky name.
You dont need to go beyond yesterday for history. The foreign aid budget for example is litteral bribery with a less icky name.
If you think this is shocking, wait until you dig into the history of the EU countries selling arms and anti-protest gear to Russia despite the embargo that was put in place in 2014.
Can you provide some specifics?
I live in Africa. Nairobi, Kenya to be precise.
One obvious problem I have seen is the procurement laws and procedures. Especially in government and public companies. For example, you need to go through a tender process to procure basic stuff like licenses for software. So a separate company (not Microsoft) submits a tender to "supply" another company for licenses to use Microsoft products.
This opens up a clear avenue for corruption. And it is heavily exploited. These companies basically submit tenders for the these licenses at exorbitantly inflated prices while doing absolutely nothing. There is nothing preventing these public companies and government agencies for purchasing directly from Microsoft except for the procurement rules and procedures.
So we end up in a situation where folks that are awarded these tenders end up pocketing large amounts for "supplying Microsoft software". Local Microsoft employees are obviously colluding with them.
Reviewing these procurement rules and laws may have some impact in reducing these obvious form of corruption.
One obvious problem I have seen is the procurement laws and procedures. Especially in government and public companies. For example, you need to go through a tender process to procure basic stuff like licenses for software. So a separate company (not Microsoft) submits a tender to "supply" another company for licenses to use Microsoft products.
This opens up a clear avenue for corruption. And it is heavily exploited. These companies basically submit tenders for the these licenses at exorbitantly inflated prices while doing absolutely nothing. There is nothing preventing these public companies and government agencies for purchasing directly from Microsoft except for the procurement rules and procedures.
So we end up in a situation where folks that are awarded these tenders end up pocketing large amounts for "supplying Microsoft software". Local Microsoft employees are obviously colluding with them.
Reviewing these procurement rules and laws may have some impact in reducing these obvious form of corruption.
Illegal overseas bribes are distinct from Microsoft's domestic legal lobbying activities.
When I worked as a bicycle courier in DC I recall picking up from Microsoft, 1401 I st. NW. No software was developed at this office. It was just highly paid lawyers and lobbyists. Consider how productive that is in real terms, and remember those costs are passed onto you as a consumer.
The delivery was 9 Titleist golf balls in a box, each ball inside of an individual box. There was also a greeting card. The entire delivery was packaged inside of a bubble wrapped envelope. The congressperson wasn't interested in sending an aide outside to collect the package even after the contents were explained.
The check inside of the greeting card for 10,000 USD was not enticing enough for them to come outside.
In these scenarios, packages were sent to the "security trailer", which was no longer a trailer, but a concrete block structure nearby on Capitol Hill.
Inside of the trailer, I was instructed to individually double bag each golf ball, with a barcode on the inner bag. A security person or Capitol Hill policeman pedantically ordered each step of the process from a drive-thru quality intercom system.
For his safety, he stayed behind the bulletproof glass with a positive air pressure differential. He still had to sign my manifest to accept the delivery. It was like standing in front of a laboratory flow hood as I passed my clipboard into the robotic drawer.
After bagging, I was instructed to individually x-ray each item. Next, the entire package was double bagged again with yet another barcode. Finally, I handed off the package through the airlock. About 15 minutes total. Could have been longer, but he already had my data entered into the computer system. I was a regular visitor.
The entire procedure is absurd. The distinction of illegal bribes in the title speaks to this. Say what you will about the necessity of the state, but whether legal or illegally practiced, government gatekeepers are a net drain on the economy. If you cannot appreciate the productivity losses in abstract terms, consider how inefficient the processes are to simply deliver a check for ten-thousand dollars to a congressperson.
When I worked as a bicycle courier in DC I recall picking up from Microsoft, 1401 I st. NW. No software was developed at this office. It was just highly paid lawyers and lobbyists. Consider how productive that is in real terms, and remember those costs are passed onto you as a consumer.
The delivery was 9 Titleist golf balls in a box, each ball inside of an individual box. There was also a greeting card. The entire delivery was packaged inside of a bubble wrapped envelope. The congressperson wasn't interested in sending an aide outside to collect the package even after the contents were explained.
The check inside of the greeting card for 10,000 USD was not enticing enough for them to come outside.
In these scenarios, packages were sent to the "security trailer", which was no longer a trailer, but a concrete block structure nearby on Capitol Hill.
Inside of the trailer, I was instructed to individually double bag each golf ball, with a barcode on the inner bag. A security person or Capitol Hill policeman pedantically ordered each step of the process from a drive-thru quality intercom system.
For his safety, he stayed behind the bulletproof glass with a positive air pressure differential. He still had to sign my manifest to accept the delivery. It was like standing in front of a laboratory flow hood as I passed my clipboard into the robotic drawer.
After bagging, I was instructed to individually x-ray each item. Next, the entire package was double bagged again with yet another barcode. Finally, I handed off the package through the airlock. About 15 minutes total. Could have been longer, but he already had my data entered into the computer system. I was a regular visitor.
The entire procedure is absurd. The distinction of illegal bribes in the title speaks to this. Say what you will about the necessity of the state, but whether legal or illegally practiced, government gatekeepers are a net drain on the economy. If you cannot appreciate the productivity losses in abstract terms, consider how inefficient the processes are to simply deliver a check for ten-thousand dollars to a congressperson.
I don't really understand what connection the security around packages has to do with the whole lobbying thing. It's hardly surprising they'd have some elaborate procedures around that when random people try to deliver pipe bombs or anthrax spores to Congresspeople every few years.
One of the funny points was that you could bring any kind of package with you into the House and Senate office buildings as long as it was not a destined for those buildings. As an example, the same package (addressed to some other building) could have come in with me, if I were there to pickup an outgoing package.
There's an special kind of absurdity when delivering the legal bribe itself is inefficient and the security theater is nonsensical.
There's an special kind of absurdity when delivering the legal bribe itself is inefficient and the security theater is nonsensical.
I bet everyone had a stellar score on the code of condut and company values trainings.
Hence why they are worthless beyond getting a checkmark on the yearly corporate trainings.
Hence why they are worthless beyond getting a checkmark on the yearly corporate trainings.
OMG
The article provides two internals audit reports, which are PDFs with blacked out names:
> Exceed IT Services [0]
> Diyar United Company [1]
Yes, this is just the black bars on top the info.
Not only author explicitly confirmed receiving teh internal MS documents but he didn't do a proper cleanup of the documents he provides to whole world.
This guy, along with his accomplice in MS, is in deep, deep trouble if anyone bothers to come for them.
[0] https://58a44b37-ba55-451b-989d-b8bc5339d45f.usrfiles.com/ug...
[1] https://58a44b37-ba55-451b-989d-b8bc5339d45f.usrfiles.com/ug...
The article provides two internals audit reports, which are PDFs with blacked out names:
> Exceed IT Services [0]
> Diyar United Company [1]
Yes, this is just the black bars on top the info.
Not only author explicitly confirmed receiving teh internal MS documents but he didn't do a proper cleanup of the documents he provides to whole world.
This guy, along with his accomplice in MS, is in deep, deep trouble if anyone bothers to come for them.
[0] https://58a44b37-ba55-451b-989d-b8bc5339d45f.usrfiles.com/ug...
[1] https://58a44b37-ba55-451b-989d-b8bc5339d45f.usrfiles.com/ug...
You can also read the “end customer names” and “reseller names” (or rather, copy and paste them).
Microsoft's mission to empower people anywhere in the world to do more apparently means transferring wealth to thugs in developing countries without actually delivering technology.
As opposed to legal bribes?
Yes, they use legal bribes in the US and Europe.
And illegal ones too. For one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_licensing_corruption...
Usually these countries doesn't have lobby groups in the same sense. That's why it is illegal bribes.
Alright playing the devil's advocate. even though I'm against both forms obviously.
yes, "legal bribes" go by many names depending on the target, amount and place.
tips, lobbying, political donations, promises, non-political donations/gifts to a "friend", funding, an implicit promise to land a comfy job after gov, etc ...
the difference between the west and other places is that in the west when you try to screw over other people, you design legal frameworks and loopholes that make said bribes legal and rightful and other shenanigans that diffuse the trail while places like the middle east and elsewhere it's more straight forward and has less abstraction layers, they look you in the eye smile and let you know that their screwing you.
the western model is better because you don't have to deal with the emotional reaction that comes from the humiliation and injustice face to face, and if you're not observing enough you might not even notice it if you want.
you can take a lot bribes and translate them into more acceptable/familiar language:
- bribing a waiter to not mess with your food: customer service tip.
- bribing a local government worker to give you a document that's rightfully your and skip your a lot of BS round-trips across many desks: an express lane service a la TSA preCheck/ Airlines Priority queues that helps people vote with their wallet about the urgency of the getting that document.
- having a bribe someone to land some big contract: an auction mechanism where bidders display the seriousness of their commitment to the project with their wallets.
- bribing a government official to not enforce a rule or interpret it in specific ways or create new regulation that just happen to be in your favor: lobbying
the list can go on.
yes, "legal bribes" go by many names depending on the target, amount and place.
tips, lobbying, political donations, promises, non-political donations/gifts to a "friend", funding, an implicit promise to land a comfy job after gov, etc ...
the difference between the west and other places is that in the west when you try to screw over other people, you design legal frameworks and loopholes that make said bribes legal and rightful and other shenanigans that diffuse the trail while places like the middle east and elsewhere it's more straight forward and has less abstraction layers, they look you in the eye smile and let you know that their screwing you.
the western model is better because you don't have to deal with the emotional reaction that comes from the humiliation and injustice face to face, and if you're not observing enough you might not even notice it if you want.
you can take a lot bribes and translate them into more acceptable/familiar language:
- bribing a waiter to not mess with your food: customer service tip.
- bribing a local government worker to give you a document that's rightfully your and skip your a lot of BS round-trips across many desks: an express lane service a la TSA preCheck/ Airlines Priority queues that helps people vote with their wallet about the urgency of the getting that document.
- having a bribe someone to land some big contract: an auction mechanism where bidders display the seriousness of their commitment to the project with their wallets.
- bribing a government official to not enforce a rule or interpret it in specific ways or create new regulation that just happen to be in your favor: lobbying
the list can go on.
I think they mean the (sub)set of foreign bribes that are illegal for US entities.
All bribes are illegal for US entities. If they were legal, they would call it something else...
Apparently the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act makes an exception for so-called "grease payments", which are bribes (i.e. technically illegal in the foreign country) that are intended just to get someone to do their expected job.
Bribing foreigners used to be legal for US entities.
Yes, lobbying.
"grease payments"
> illegal bribes
Are there also legal bribes?
Are there also legal bribes?
Yes, legal bribes are how most of the Anglo-Saxon world works. For example, if I want certain favours from the current UK government, I can give a friend of mine an interest-free loan for him to donate significant sums of money to the current ruling party (Tories). You get away with this as long as there is no written record and just a discussion on the golf club. Not surprisingly, the government may then award you lucrative contracts or change the law in subtle ways that are in your favour.
Of course, the friend in question will then get endorsed for a lucrative position, a cushy consultancy job or a non-executive board membership.
Of course, the friend in question will then get endorsed for a lucrative position, a cushy consultancy job or a non-executive board membership.
> I want certain favours from the current UK government, I can give a friend of mine an interest-free loan for him to donate significant sums of money to the current ruling party (Tories). You get away with this as long as there is no written record
Having seen this in action (UK, Tory government) ... you are taking too many steps and too much complication. You donate publicly, on the register, to the party, candidates, (leadership candidates) etc. They give you things you ask for. The entire "scheme" is far more transparent than you think. It is also much cheaper than you think.
The expensive path is to literally hire a sitting member of parliament to your company and then you also get things you ask for.
The system works(/worked) extremely well because the people involved had some class and would only ask and take within reason. If you know, you know.
Having seen this in action (UK, Tory government) ... you are taking too many steps and too much complication. You donate publicly, on the register, to the party, candidates, (leadership candidates) etc. They give you things you ask for. The entire "scheme" is far more transparent than you think. It is also much cheaper than you think.
The expensive path is to literally hire a sitting member of parliament to your company and then you also get things you ask for.
The system works(/worked) extremely well because the people involved had some class and would only ask and take within reason. If you know, you know.
Those aren't legal either, unless you go by the motto "you are only guilty if you get caught"...
* A friend asks me to borrow $400K. He is a good friend, and I am happy to help him out
* A few months later, he decides to donate $200K to a political party that happens to be in power at the time
* The government makes certain decisions that appear to be in my favour. I discussed that certain changes would be helpful but never asked for them directly.
As another poster highlighted, you don't even need to use a friend in the UK, you can donate directly. The price of a seat in the House of Lords is £400,000 ($500K), but you can get other political favours much cheaper.
> The price of a seat in the House of Lords is £400,000
The price to buy a seat from Boris was nearly an order of magnitude cheaper - but he also sold a lot of seats that he can not fulfill.
The price to buy a seat from Boris was nearly an order of magnitude cheaper - but he also sold a lot of seats that he can not fulfill.
I think that would still be illegal but just very hard to prove and prosecute.
Illegal means it is beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a violation of the law. People do not get thrown in jail for donating money to political parties.
Suggesting ideas to political parties is also not illegal.
It is only illegal if the money is donated for the sole purpose of influencing a particular decision.
Suggesting ideas to political parties is also not illegal.
It is only illegal if the money is donated for the sole purpose of influencing a particular decision.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> You get away with this as long as there is no written record and just a discussion on the golf club.
That's not legal then. There's just a lack of evidence to bring a successful prosecution.
That's not legal then. There's just a lack of evidence to bring a successful prosecution.
A less facetious answer: Yes.
Anti-bribery laws authorise the use of bribes under narrow circumstances:
Particularly if the bribe seems to be necessary for safety of life (e.g. although you can clearly see the hospital has empty beds and equipment, the nursing staff assure you that your employee can't be helped and must just die here in the waiting room, sure enough once they have been bribed suitably the employee is given a bed and treatment begins). The bribe must be properly reported, both as a business expense and specifically as a bribe paid.
It is also certainly true that countries with global anti-bribery laws (including the US and UK) definitely don't actually enforce those laws when it comes to arms sales or other government authorised activity that frequently involves corrupt foreign governments. But that's just an ordinary example of "Do as I say, not as I do".
Anti-bribery laws authorise the use of bribes under narrow circumstances:
Particularly if the bribe seems to be necessary for safety of life (e.g. although you can clearly see the hospital has empty beds and equipment, the nursing staff assure you that your employee can't be helped and must just die here in the waiting room, sure enough once they have been bribed suitably the employee is given a bed and treatment begins). The bribe must be properly reported, both as a business expense and specifically as a bribe paid.
It is also certainly true that countries with global anti-bribery laws (including the US and UK) definitely don't actually enforce those laws when it comes to arms sales or other government authorised activity that frequently involves corrupt foreign governments. But that's just an ordinary example of "Do as I say, not as I do".
> illegal bribes
>> Are there also legal bribes?
Yes, lobbying. Legal bribery.
>> Are there also legal bribes?
Yes, lobbying. Legal bribery.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54922374
from the article "As of 1996, about half of the countries in the OECD allowed companies to deduct bribes paid to foreign officials from their taxes, including Germany, France, Australia, New Zealand and Switzerland. They argued that such practices were routine business expenses in some countries."
one more: https://www.reuters.com/article/swiss-bribes-idUSL8N2HX5BV
one more: https://www.reuters.com/article/swiss-bribes-idUSL8N2HX5BV
Citizens United case legalized bribes in the form of political campaign contributions.
Unlike the other responses, I will provide a more mundane example that's hopefully more relatable: Giving your mailman or deliveryman a can of coke/pepsi as a token of appreciation.
Next time, they're going to be more careful and timely handling your package, and you'll keep asking if they want a drink. It's unfair, because you will get special treatment compared to those who don't, but we're all human and everyone's happier. This is legal bribery.
Next time, they're going to be more careful and timely handling your package, and you'll keep asking if they want a drink. It's unfair, because you will get special treatment compared to those who don't, but we're all human and everyone's happier. This is legal bribery.
Bribery seems to be a thing that happens everywhere, cough..clarence thomas..cough...
[deleted]
just to be clear, can a bribe ever be legal?
bribes are illegal. what is an illegal bribe?
and what is this word using? say it like it is. microsoft is bribing.
Lobbying is legal bribing
In other news, water is wet.
Can one do business in the Middle East & Africa without bribing?
Honest question: what’s the difference between a bribe and a legal fee? E.g. when you apply for a UK visa, you need to pay over 1k GBP as an “application fee”. Why is this application fee not considered a bribe?
Bribe goes to person doing the work. Fee goes to organization and the worker likely sees none of it.
UK can ask high fees for various reason, maybe to cover costs, or just for political reasons to get less people applying for visa.
UK can ask high fees for various reason, maybe to cover costs, or just for political reasons to get less people applying for visa.
What's the difference between a bribe and a tip
If you don't tip, you still get your food.
Yes. And, bribes and tips are each other's opposite, in a way:
- You want people to know that you tip. Then they think better of you: a generous and thankful person.
- You want people to not know that you pay bribes.
- If you don't tip, you might look like a rude and selfish person.
- If you don't bribe, you'll look like a more trustworthy high integrity person
(well, unless seen through the eyes of those who like bribes)
- You pay bribes before. Tips after. (Typically.)
I think tips and bribes are two different animals.
- You want people to know that you tip. Then they think better of you: a generous and thankful person.
- You want people to not know that you pay bribes.
- If you don't tip, you might look like a rude and selfish person.
- If you don't bribe, you'll look like a more trustworthy high integrity person
(well, unless seen through the eyes of those who like bribes)
- You pay bribes before. Tips after. (Typically.)
I think tips and bribes are two different animals.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Nothing. Or mainly that bribe gets you prosecuted where as tip is culturally accepted.
depends on the country
"tips" in the US are culturally accepted, although when I tried to tip the guy giving me a speeding ticket he was not happy.
"bribes" in India are culturally accepted
Neither are accepted in China
"tips" in the US are culturally accepted, although when I tried to tip the guy giving me a speeding ticket he was not happy.
"bribes" in India are culturally accepted
Neither are accepted in China
In that case I prefer bribes. I prefer paying people rather than bureaucracies.
You do realize this removes the "merit" element from a system that is supposed to be merit-based?
I don’t know what merit you’re talking about. I don’t think there’s anything to remove. If I was paying for some work done, like healthcare services (separate fee) or application processing costs + documents (>£1k? definitely not), then sure, but that’s not it.
The difference is that bribery is about the "agent-principal" distinction. If an agent who is supposed to represent the interests of the principal actually does so (e.g. follows the policy when making decisions and the money flows as intended by the principal) that's normal behavior; but if they take money to breach their duty of trust, that's a bribe.
Since the agent receiving money for UK visa works for the UK, them doing what UK requires is not a bribe - perhaps you might argue that it's extortion or something else, but not a bribe, because there is no breach of duty.
Since the agent receiving money for UK visa works for the UK, them doing what UK requires is not a bribe - perhaps you might argue that it's extortion or something else, but not a bribe, because there is no breach of duty.
When you buy groceries from the store, do you also consider that bribing the clerk? Of not, can you explain what you see as the difference?
The difference is I pay for what I get. With the visa application fee, there’s nothing that can be worth £1k there. Note that I didn’t include fees for healthcare and taxes in that figure. It’s just a nonsense fee on top for nothing.
So you didn't pay the application fee because access to the UK wasn't worth it?
It is worth it. But it isn’t a compensation for any work done by the government you pay it to. The value was created by people who didn’t receive anything from that money. The government is just the intermediary taking fees for access to it.
If bribes weren’t worth paying, they wouldn’t be a thing.
If bribes weren’t worth paying, they wouldn’t be a thing.
Sorry, you paid to get access and you got access?
So it what exactly was the difference against the grocery store? You know they don't actually make the milk in the store, right?
So it what exactly was the difference against the grocery store? You know they don't actually make the milk in the store, right?
The grocery store buys the milk it sells. The UK government on the other hand has no input in what makes the UK appealing: nature, climate, humour, low fraction of religious bigotry etc etc.
Are you sure you understand what role the government plays for now nice it is to be in its territory?
> $COMPANYNAME is using illegal bribes in the Middle East and Africa
/thread.
> A former colleague based in Saudi Arabia who had become upset by what he saw taking place at Microsoft began forwarding me emails and documentation—and I learned that the corruption went much deeper than I had suspected.
Great, the guy just confessed receiving the internal documents from a company sent by an accomplice.
> This decision maker on the customer side would send an email to Microsoft requesting a discount, which would be granted, but the end customer would pay the full fee anyway. The amount of the discount would then be distributed among the parties in cahoots: the Microsoft employee(s) involved in the scheme, the partner, and the decision maker at the purchasing entity—often a government official.
Yep, the most straightforward and easy way to get some additional money.
> In a 2015 meeting with members of the Nigerian Parliament, the president of the Senate complained to me that the government had paid $5.5 million for Microsoft licenses for hardware they did not possess. This should never have happened, because Microsoft’s standard practice was to meet with the National Assembly’s IT department and financial controller to check the number of computers needing licenses before submitting any proposal.
This is not MS' problem, it's the problem of some corrupt paper-pusher who managed to convince all parties what there was a need to spend $5.5M.
> Likewise, auditors discovered that Qatar’s Ministry of Education was paying $9.5 million annually over seven years for Microsoft Office and Windows licenses they weren’t using—as they didn’t even have any PCs or laptop computers
Again, this is not MS' problem.
To sum up: the guy lived in the bubble for 20 years and suddenly he understood.
/thread.
> A former colleague based in Saudi Arabia who had become upset by what he saw taking place at Microsoft began forwarding me emails and documentation—and I learned that the corruption went much deeper than I had suspected.
Great, the guy just confessed receiving the internal documents from a company sent by an accomplice.
> This decision maker on the customer side would send an email to Microsoft requesting a discount, which would be granted, but the end customer would pay the full fee anyway. The amount of the discount would then be distributed among the parties in cahoots: the Microsoft employee(s) involved in the scheme, the partner, and the decision maker at the purchasing entity—often a government official.
Yep, the most straightforward and easy way to get some additional money.
> In a 2015 meeting with members of the Nigerian Parliament, the president of the Senate complained to me that the government had paid $5.5 million for Microsoft licenses for hardware they did not possess. This should never have happened, because Microsoft’s standard practice was to meet with the National Assembly’s IT department and financial controller to check the number of computers needing licenses before submitting any proposal.
This is not MS' problem, it's the problem of some corrupt paper-pusher who managed to convince all parties what there was a need to spend $5.5M.
> Likewise, auditors discovered that Qatar’s Ministry of Education was paying $9.5 million annually over seven years for Microsoft Office and Windows licenses they weren’t using—as they didn’t even have any PCs or laptop computers
Again, this is not MS' problem.
To sum up: the guy lived in the bubble for 20 years and suddenly he understood.
I hope never to come across you in real life or do business with you. Your response to reported illegal activity is to laugh at the reporter? Do better.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is how the things are done in the real life.
> is to laugh at the reporter
Sorry, but while I didn't laugh at the reporter I can't believe someone worked for 15 years in ME/A and didn't notice the corruption and bribes.
> do business with you
Thanks, I dont' want to do business with someone who didn't understand the comment yet responds with "Do better".
And because you need a clarification: no, I don't defend the corruption described in TFA, I just merely point out what the problem lies not in MS itself but in the modus operandi of many, many people with access to government funds.
> is to laugh at the reporter
Sorry, but while I didn't laugh at the reporter I can't believe someone worked for 15 years in ME/A and didn't notice the corruption and bribes.
> do business with you
Thanks, I dont' want to do business with someone who didn't understand the comment yet responds with "Do better".
And because you need a clarification: no, I don't defend the corruption described in TFA, I just merely point out what the problem lies not in MS itself but in the modus operandi of many, many people with access to government funds.
>Thanks, I dont' want to do business with someone who didn't understand the comment yet responds with "Do better".
You're a saint, and I mean that sincerely.
Anyone more down to earth would be ecstatic to conduct business with a self-professed naive individual, because the art of business is ripping someone off without pissing them off.
You're a saint, and I mean that sincerely.
Anyone more down to earth would be ecstatic to conduct business with a self-professed naive individual, because the art of business is ripping someone off without pissing them off.
[deleted]
> be distributed among the parties in cahoots: the Microsoft employee(s) involved in the scheme, the partner, and the decision maker at the purchasing entity
Fraud.
> In the government had paid $5.5 million for Microsoft licenses for hardware they did not possess
Microsoft being paid for something doesnt sound like Microsoft bribing someone.
> Qatar’s Ministry of Education was paying $9.5 million annually over seven years for Microsoft Office
Microsoft being paid for something doesnt sound like Microsoft bribing someone.
I too have a Microsoft 365 subscription that keeps autorenewing that I never use.
Fraud.
> In the government had paid $5.5 million for Microsoft licenses for hardware they did not possess
Microsoft being paid for something doesnt sound like Microsoft bribing someone.
> Qatar’s Ministry of Education was paying $9.5 million annually over seven years for Microsoft Office
Microsoft being paid for something doesnt sound like Microsoft bribing someone.
I too have a Microsoft 365 subscription that keeps autorenewing that I never use.
> Fraud.
If the money passed through a 3rd-party which took the cut then it's not even a fraud, because it's up to the purchasing entity to use [or not] the discount. Like sure, it's an obvious collusion but from the point of law there is nothing wrong here.
> I too have a Microsoft 365 subscription that keeps autorenewing that I never use.
And this is the gist of most of OP woes.
If the money passed through a 3rd-party which took the cut then it's not even a fraud, because it's up to the purchasing entity to use [or not] the discount. Like sure, it's an obvious collusion but from the point of law there is nothing wrong here.
> I too have a Microsoft 365 subscription that keeps autorenewing that I never use.
And this is the gist of most of OP woes.
^^ This guy bribes.
Not necessarily, might be just an observer.
You would be shocked, but it is very similar in EU countries too.
You would be shocked, but it is very similar in EU countries too.
The attempt to deploy western culture globally has failed miserably, generating jobs who exist merley to errect a veneer of compliance.
Behind the thin layer of paint, the old culture and world continus happily on unphased by the hysterics. And it was always painfully obvious for those in the know.
For example there was a law in many arab countries, that you could not do buisness with israel and do buisness with them. Yet, when you opened company location maps, there they were, side by side, right next to the company "morals & mission statements" tab. The obvious answer, bribes in broad daylight.
Now, as the western exported "cultural revolution" winds down in obvious failure, all that veneer fades away and the ugly old world reappears as if it was never gone.
Very soon, the workers with confiscated passports might as well be called slaves again. Its a sad, depressing state of affairs, but then it was for the non deluded befor this point in time too.