Global Anti-Bribery & Corruption Training that Reduces Risk and Increases Compliance

The concern is not so much relying on a foreign travel agency --- the concern is when anyone relies on an organization that has not been properly reviewed and vetted and there's a possibility that the organization's money is being spent on "gifts" or "bribes" to various foreign officials. In FCPA (foreign corrupt practices act) cases -- many involve foreign travel agencies who pretend they are booking travel and arrangements and instead, that money is going to pay bribes to foreign officials. As a result, an organization should be careful to ensure there is a clear record trail to show where money is going when dealing with foreign agents or other service providers.

There is nothing inherently wrong with sole source procurement. However, the corruption risk is that a government contracting official with discretion over the procurement process may request money or something of value to convert what would otherwise be a competitive bidding process into a sole source procurement with the end result being that the company providing or offering money or something of value to the foreign official will get the contract. Obtaining (or retaining) a sole source contract is only a violation of the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions - generally speaking - to the extent a company provides or offers money or something of value (recognize that the FCPA enforcement agencies take a very broad view of this term) directly or indirectly (through a third party) to a foreign official to influence their discretion. In terms of risk management, you might want to inquire about the justification for the sole source arrangement, whether the logistics of the process are written and transparent and be particularly cognizant if a third party suggested or is otherwise involved in the negotiation or procurement process. Hope that's helpful!

Both of your scenarios remain risky. At certain golf courses, tee times are difficult to obtain or may be limited to members only. Thus, the simple act of securing a tee time may be viewed as something of value to the "foreign official" and in your scenario you note that this is being done to "maintain good relations" with the individual. In the second scenario, something of value is still being provided to the "foreign official" in the form of lunch. This element has no de minimis exception and it is difficult to see how this might qualify under the FCPA's affirmative defense for reasonable and bona fide expenses directly related to a business purpose. Hope this provides some clarity.

Thanks for your question and yes, that's a bit awkward. You can address the situation a few different ways. If he tries to give you a gift a second time, you can politely decline and let him know your organization has a corporate policy that prohibits any/all gifts from vendors, partners, customers, etc. You can also choose to return the necklace based on the same rationale and explain that you asked a compliance professional and you were informed a necklace violated the corporate policy on gifts and gift giving. Of course, returning a gift is far more difficult than declining it when offered. Good luck!

Typically, one moderately priced dinner would not be considered sufficient "value" to influence your professional judgment. But if you have a concern about it, you can always elect to pay for your own dinner.