有關於行賄受賄的英語文章

　　行賄受賄行為既破壞了社會分配的公平,又降低了社會生產的效率,人們都對這種行為深惡痛疾。下面是小編帶來的，歡迎閱讀!

　　篇一

　　Bribery abroad A tale of two laws

　　海外行賄 兩部法律的故事

　　America's anti-corruption law deters foreign investment. Britain's is smarter

　　美國的反貪腐法讓企業對海外投資望而卻步，而英國的則更為明智

　　BRIBING foreign officials is wrong, but not everything governments do to prevent it is wise or proportional.

　　向外國官員行賄是不對的。但並非政府所做的所有防範行賄的措施都是明智或能產生對應成效的。

　　Firms are increasingly fed up with the way America's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act FCPA is written confusingly and applied vigorously.

　　企業對美國的《海外反腐法》FCPA的厭倦是與日俱增，不僅僅因為它的內容讓人困惑，還因為它的執行方式過於激進。

　　The law was passed in 1977, but recent years have seen a spike in enforcement, from five actions in 2004 to 74 in 2010.

　　該法案於1977年通過，然而最近幾年執行次數增長迅速，從2004年的5次增長到2010年的74次。

　　Five of the ten biggest settlements ever were last year, including a $400m fine against BAE Systems, a British defence contractor, and a $365m fine against ENI, an Italian oil firm.

　　十大處罰中有五個發生於去年，其中包括對英國國防承包商BAE系統的處罰達4億美元以及義大利石油公司ENI的處罰達3.65億美元。

　　On August 31st the Wall Street Journal reported that the Department of Justice has been investigating Oracle, a database-software company, for a year. Unusually, Oracle has said nothing about the investigation. Ethisphere, a promoter of corporate responsibility, rated Oracle one of the world's most ethical companies in 2009. Mike Koehler, a law professor at Butler University in Indiana, writes that General Electric, HP, AstraZeneca and others have all been among Ethisphere's "World's Most Ethical" while settling FCPA prosecutions or under investigation.

　　八月31日《華爾街日報》報道稱司法部調查一個數據庫軟體公司Oracle，已經一年了。反常的是，Oracle對這次調查隻字不提。企業責任提倡人Ethisphere認為Oracle是2009年全球最有道德責任感的企業之一。印第安納州Butler大學的某法律專家Mike Koehler寫道，曾位列Ethisphere的"全球最具道德責任感企業"名單上的General Electric, HP, AstraZeneca等企業都被FCPA的指控過或者受到調查。

　　An FCPA action is an ordeal. Few firms dare risk going to court—only two cases against corporations have ever resulted in completed trials. The vast majority of cases are settled, which can take years. Listed companies must satisfy not only the Department of Justice, but also the Securities and Exchange Commission, which enforces the FCPA provisions requiring accurate records of all business dealings to deter or detect illicit payments. Before the department and the commission will sign off on a settlement, the company must satisfy them that the rest of its operations are squeaky clean. Narrow investigations can mutate into broad ones that cost tens of millions of dollars.

　　被FCPA指控的話，後果很慘痛。很少企業敢冒險上法庭——企業被告的案例中只有兩個結案了。很多案子要用上幾年時間才能結案。上市公司不僅要達到司法部的要求，還要滿足證券和交易委員會的要求，而這就使得FCPA要具備所有企業的交易記錄從而防止或者發現非法交易。在司法部和該委員會做出最終決定之前，企業必須讓他們相信公司的其它運作也是沒有貓膩的。調查不充分會使案情變得更大，為此將付出成千億美元。

　　And bosses can be sent to prison for up to 20 years if their companies fall foul of the FCPA. In theory, they could be jailed because a staff member at a foreign subsidiary bribed an official without their knowledge. In some cases, the law insists that directors ought to know about dodgy goings-on, even if they do not.

　　如果企業違反了FCPA的規定其老闆的最高可被判刑20年。理論上，即使是在他們不知情的情況下，如果其駐外員工向官員行賄的話，他們也可被判入獄。某些情況下，法律堅持認為管理者應該知道這些小動作——即使有時候他們確實不知情。

　　This is a hefty deterrent to doing business in poor countries, some studies have found. Andy Spalding, a law professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law, likens the way the FCPA is enforced to "de facto sanctions" on countries where corruption is rife. A study by KPMG, a consultancy, found that a third of British and a quarter of American companies would simply steer clear of corruption-prone countries to avoid the risk of being prosecuted. Firms from less fussy places, such as China, will happily fill the gap.

　　有研究發現，這成了企業進駐窮國的極大障礙。芝加哥肯特法學院的一名法律專家Andy Spalding將FCPA的做法類比為貪腐盛行的國家的"事實判決"。某顧問公司KPMG做了一份研究表明，三分之一的英國公司和四分之一的美國公司會簡單地選擇不去那些貪腐盛行的國家做生意，從而避免被起訴。而處於要求不那麼嚴格的國家比如中國的企業則很樂意填補這個空白。

　　The US Chamber of Commerce, a business lobby, says the FCPA also deters foreign mergers and acquisitions. A firm inherits the sins of a company it buys, even if it has done reasonable due diligence, the chamber says. To avoid this risk, it must conduct the equivalent of a "vast internal investigation", says the chamber. Many firms find it simpler to stay at home.

　　商業遊說團——美國商會——認為FCPA將外資併購企業也嚇跑了，它認為即使一個企業已經做了法律盡職調查，但還是要承擔它所併購的企業的罪行。為了避免這種危險，該企業必須進行一次"大範圍的內部調查"，該商會說道。於是很多企業覺得留在國內發展要簡單得多。

　　A new British anti-bribery law, passed in 2010, appears to have been better crafted. The Bribery Act is broad and tough. It covers bribery within Britain as well as abroad. In contrast to the FCPA, it makes no exception for small "facilitation payments" to speed up routine business such as customs checks or visas.

　　英國2010年通過的反賄賂法似乎更勝一籌。該《賄賂法》涉及範圍更廣，刑法也更重：其處罰物件既包括國內也包括國外。相較FCPA，它連"便利支付"——能加速一些類似海關檢查或者簽證等日常業務的支付方式——也不放過。

　　But it is fair, too. Unlike the FCPA, it has a "compliance defence" that allows a company to avoid the harshest penalties if the wrongdoer is a junior employee and the firm otherwise has a strict anti-bribery policy which is clear to all employees and effectively administered. One rogue employee can't easily cause a crippling probe into an otherwise blameless company.

　　然而它也是公平的。與FCPA不同的是，它允許"遵守式合規性保護"，也就是說，如果涉事員工是未成年人或者該企業有嚴格的反賄賂規定，並且讓所有員工都知曉這項規定從而使其得到有效執行，那麼該企業可以避開最嚴酷的懲罰。一個按規矩做事的企業不會如此輕易地讓一兩位明知故犯的員工給毀了。

　　America's Department of Justice sees no need for such safeguards. And since few cases go to trial, judges have given little guidance as to what the FCPA's bewildering text actually means. So, for now, it means whatever an aggressive prosecutor says it does.

　　而美國司法部認為這樣的防範是多餘的。由於很少案子受到審訊，法官也沒有對FCPA那些令人迷惑的條款做出太多指示。因此，就目前為止，這些條款的含義，全憑膽大的起訴人如何作出解讀。

　　篇二

　　商業行賄

　　There is no doubt that this cartoon vividly depicts a negative but rampant scenario in modern society： commercial bribery. Frightened by the sharp punishment sword， the man， carrying a large pile of money used as bribery①， is trying his best to escape. What is conveyed by the drawing is both realistic and thought-provoking.

　　The implication of the given picture can be elaborated in terms of the decline of work-moral values and the view on money. For one thing， commercial bribery has a very damaging and destructive② effect on the whole society. Firstly， moral deficiencies as well as the humanity weakness revealed in the action of bribery③ may stain and pollute the atmosphere of professional ethics and cause others to copy. Secondly， fair competition may be threatened because bribery puts honest businessmen at a disadvantaged position. For another， the bad behavior of commercial bribery is largely driven by “profit”， showing that those people who are involved in bribery do not have a right view on money. It is true that money is indispensable④， but， there is no denying that money should be obtained and spent in a reasonable， wise and legitimate way.

　　To eliminate the immoral behavior of bribery thoroughly⑤， drastic actions should be taken and severe punishment measures should be adopted. Besides， a positive mental guidance on the right attitude to money should be popularized among the public. Only in this way can we have a fair and sound social environment.

　　佳作妙譯

　　毫無疑問這幅漫畫生動地描述了現代社會一種負面的但是卻十分猖獗的現象：商業賄賂。由於懼怕嚴厲的懲罰，這個人揹著一大堆賄賂用的錢落荒而逃。漫畫的寓意是十分現實併發人深思的。

　　上圖的寓意可以理解為詳細闡述了在金錢衝擊下職業道德的淪陷。一方面，商業賄賂對全社會造成惡劣的、毀滅性的影響。首先在賄賂行為中表現出的道德缺陷和人性弱點會破壞和汙染職業道德的氛圍，不良分子也會效仿。其次，行賄者將破壞公平競爭，誠信經營的商人被置於不利地位。另一方面，商業賄賂行為大多是被利益驅動的，這說明這些人對金錢沒有正確的態度。沒有金錢的確是萬萬不能的，但對待金錢，無疑需要取之有道，用之有度。

　　為了徹底根除賄賂這種道德敗壞的行為，應該採取嚴厲的懲罰措施。另外，應該在公眾中逐漸普及正確的金錢觀。只有這樣，我們才能擁有公平、健全的社會環境。

　　篇三

　　中國政府重拳出擊商業賄賂

　　China has vowed to step up its fight against bribery, just days after police revealed details of a wide-ranging investigation into UK drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline.

　　The Chinese commerce ministry on Wednesday said the government “stands firmly against any form of commercial bribery” and would punish any foreign or domestic company found to be violating the law.

　　“Regardless of whether it’s a Chinese company or a foreign company, whoever breaks China’s laws will be punished and will have to bear the corresponding legal responsibility,” the ministry said in its first direct comments on the GSK case.

　　Shen Danyang, a ministry spokesman, rejected any suggestion that China was singling out foreign companies. He said the police probe into GSK demonstrated the government’s “determination to improve the investment environment and create a fair and level playing field for investors from around the world”.